ORDER

With the consent, finally heard.

2. This application filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure take exceptions to the FIR No.36/2023 dated 02/02/2023 registered in Police Station Aishbagh, District Bhopal (MP).

3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants and respondent No.2 jointly urged that a matrimonial discord resulted into lodging of impugned FIR. The parties have amicably settled their dispute. Affidavits of respondent No.2 dated 04/08/2023 and 07/08/2023 are relied upon to submits that respondent No.2 is no more interested about said FIR and prayed for setting aside the FIR.

4. A written reply of respondent No.2 dated 16/01/2024 is filed in the present case wherein she took the same stand.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 fairly urged that the matter is between applicants and respondent No.2 and is of the nature of matrimonial dispute. Thus, FIR may be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 58 (Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another), 2015 SCC OnLine MP 426 (Soliya and others v. State of MP & another) and the judgment passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.6558 of 2020 (Kamal and others v. State of MP) for quashment of FIR.

7. As noticed above, the prayer is not opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.2.

8. The Apex Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi (supra) held as under :- "15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings."

(Emphasis supplied)

9. The principle laid down in Jitendra Raghuvanshi (supra) was followed by this Court in Soliya and others (supra) and Kamal (supra).

Recently, the Apex Court again considered the judgment of Jitendra Raghuvanshi (supra) in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1736 (Rangappa Javoor v.

State of Karnataka and another). In yet another case of Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 544, the Apex Court considered the aforesaid judgment and held as under :-

"27. ............. Therefore, in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, this Court, notwithstanding that Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. does not permit compounding of an ofofence under Section 498A of the IPC, has held that the High Court, exercising the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., may quash prosecutions even in non- compoundable offences when the ends of justice so require. This view has been affirmed by the three judges' bench in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and reiterated by another three judges' bench in Jitendra Raghuvanshi v.

Babita Raghuvanshi. The reason is that the courts must not encourage matrimonial litigation, and prolongation of such litigation is detrimental to both the parties who lose their young age in chasing multiple litigation. Thus, adopting a hypertechnical view can be counter-productive as pendency itself causes pain, suffering and harassment and, consequently, it is the duty of the court to ensure that matrimonial matters are amicably resolved, thereby bringing the agony, affliction and torment to an end. In this regard, the courts only have to enquire and ensure that the settlement between the parties is achieved without pressure, force, coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence and that the consent is indeed sought by free will and choice, and the autonomy of the parties is not compromised."

(Emphasis supplied) 10. This Court has carefully gone through the FIR. The averments/allegations mentioned therein clearly shows that a matrimonial dispute resulted into lodgin