The High Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes based on an amicable settlement, as such cases are not heinous crimes and quashing them promotes peace and amity between parties.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

(Oral)

By way of instant petition, prayer has been made by the ipetitioners for quashing of FIR No. 0035 date 25.5.2023, registered under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code in PS Darlaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the court below, on the basis of compromise/amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties.

Precisely, the case of the petitioner, as emerges from the pleadings is that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2 (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No.3 namely Shekhar Sharma on 17.1.2017 and out of their wedlock, three children were born. Since on account of matrimonial discord, they were unable to live together, respondent No.2-wife left her matrimonial house and started rliving with her parents in May 2023. After her having left the matrimonial house, she lodged afore FIR, alleging therein that after her moarriage with petitioner No.3-Shekhar Sharma, she were constantly hCarassed and tortured by the accused named in the FIR for bringing less dowry.

Though after completion of the investigation, police presented chagllan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, petitioner No.3-husband and respondent No.2-wife have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for compounding the offence alleged to have been committed by them.

Respondent No.2 states on oath that she of her own volition and without there being external pressure, has entered into compromise with the petitioners, whereby they have resolved to settle thei.r dispute amicably inter-se them. She deposed that FIR in question is result of mis-understanding and since petitioners have apologized for their misbehaviour and undertaken not to repeat such mistake in future, she shall have no objection in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings initiated at her behest, are quashed and set-aside and the accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. She sh all also withdraw all the cases filed at her behest against the petitionerrs on account of amicable settlement. Her statement is taken on record.

Petitioners namely Ms. Jyoti Sharma, Ms. Shikha Sharma, Mr. Shekhar Sharma Cand Ms. Suresh Rani, who are present in the Court, while fairly acknowledging factum with regard to compromise also state that in terms of hthe compromise arrived inter-se parties, they shall take due care of the respondent/complainant and in no eventuality, she will be harassed/maltreated. Petitioner No.3 Shekhar Sharma, states on oath that he being husband of the respondent/complainant would ensure that all basic necessities of his wife as well as children are met with and he lives happily with them. Their such statement made on oath is taken on record.

Having heard the statement made on oath by respondent No.2-complainant, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General states that no fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as well co.nsequent proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioners. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the petitioners are remote and bleak, on account of statement made by complainant, as such, he shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioners is accepted and FIR in question alongwith consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioners are acquitted.

The question which now needs consideration is whether FIR in question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014)6 SCC 466 has speCcifically held that power under S. 482 CrPC is not to be exercised in the cases