The High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes based on a compromise, provided the offenses are not heinous or against society, to promote peace and amity between the parties.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

(Oral)

By way of instant petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 177/2015 dated 26.8.2015, registered at H Police Station Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 498-A and 342 of Indian Penal Code 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 (he.reinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner in the month of 2009 as per Hindu Rites and Customs, but from day one of her marriage, she was constantly harassed by the petitioner on one pretext or the other especially for bringing less dowry. Since on account of matrimonial discord, they were unable to live together, complainant-wife left her matrimonial house and sta rted living separately since the year 2015. In the aforesaid backgrround, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be instituted against the petitioner.

Though after completion of investigation, police has already presented challanC in the competent court of law, but before same could to be taken to its logical end, petitioner and respondent No.2 have entered into comhpromise, whereby they have filed joint petition under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent in the competent court of law, which has already recorded the statements of first motion and for recording of statements of second motion, matter has been listed on 3.7.2026. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings in the competent court of law.

Though vide ruder dated 8.4.2026, this Court had called upon the respondent-State to file status report, but same has not been filed, however, complainant has come present in person and is being represented by Ms. Anut Tuli Azta, Advocate.

Respondent No.2-Smt. Manisha Kashyap, states on oath that she of her own volition and without there being external pressure, has entered into compromise with the petitioner, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably irnter-se them. She deposed that FIR in question is result of mis-understanding and on account of subsequent development, whereby oshe and petitioner have decided to dissolve their marriage by way Cof mutual consent, she does not wish to prosecute the case further, as such, she shall have no objection in case FIR as well as consequehnt proceedings initiated at her behest, are quashed and set-aside andg the accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Her statement is taken on record.

Having heard the statement made on oath by respondent No.2- complainant, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, stated that no fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as well consequent proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioner. He further stated that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the petitioner are remote and bleak, on account of statement made by complainant,. as such, this court may pass appropriate orders.

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 specifically held that power under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 of BNSS) is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences ofr mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on socieoty.

At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra), wher