Amicable settlements in matrimonial disputes can warrant quashing of charges under specific IPC sections to prevent unnecessary harassment.

ORAL ORDER

1. Learned advocate Mr. Dhaval Barot states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and thereby, seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama, which is granted.

2. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of note of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it is jointly stated at the bar by learned advocates on both the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

4. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being FIR No.11195035241021 of 2024 registred at Palanpur Taluka Police Station, Banaskantha, for the offences under Sections 85, 115(2), 296(b) and 54 of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

5. Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual settlement, the original complainant has also filed an AfÏdavit, which is taken / placed on record. In the AfÏdavit, the original complainant has categorically stated that the dispute with the applicant/s has been resolved amicably and that she has no objection, if the present proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them.

6. Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, (ii) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, (iv) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v) Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant/s in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the applicant/s. Further, the continuance of trial pursuant to the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..

7. The applicants are facing charge of Section 498A of IPC. Therefore, as per the allegations made in the complaint, ingredient of Section 498A is made out. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer the decisions of the Apex Court in case of Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023INSC779 / (Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2015) and in case of Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another [(2010) 7 SCC 667], it is observed that “this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It was observed that the Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases, as allegations of harassment by husband’s close relations, who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would add an entirely different complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection”.

8. In t