IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

254 Date of decision: 05.03.2025 GAURAV KESHAV THROUGH HIS SPO BALDEV RAJ ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present : Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

Ms. Anmol Thakur, Advocate &

Mr. H.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.

KIRTI SINGH . J.(Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.46 dated 19.04.2016, under Sections 498-A and 34 of IPC registered at Police Station City Gurdaspur and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 19.10.2021 (Annexure P-3).

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the case file.

3. Vide this Court’s order dated 03.02.2025, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to the compromise.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 18.02.2025 has been received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Gurdaspur. A perusal of the said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons, except respondent No.3, have been recorded in the present case, who have stated that the matter has been settled between them and they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. The compromise effected between them is genuine, without any undue influence and coercion.

5. This Court in Deepak v. State of Haryana 2024(2) HLR 306, after discussing the law as elucidated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal 2005(3) SCC 299, Mohd. Shamim v. Smt. Nahid Begum 2005(3) SCC 302 and Mahmood Ali & ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. 2023 INSC

684, quashed the FIR filed by the wife against the husband, by observing thus:

“Analysis (re law)

8. Though Section 498-A was brought into the IPC, by way of an amending act of 1983, with the salutary objective of curbing the evil of dowry, but judicial experience evinces that this provision along with Section 406 of IPC is being heavily misapplied by the complainant-wife to settle score(s) with her husband and his family members. This Court in the case of Varun Sharma (supra) has held that, it has been noticeable in several cases, that the wife tends to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 498A of IPC against her husband as also his relatives, as a means of a 'solution seeking redressal mechanism' rather than actually seeking to criminally prosecute them. On numerous occasions an individual wail does not ensue due to a vengeful proclivity or anger, but owing to distressing disappointment endured by a discontented spouse (wife, in the present case), in securing a copacetic solution of the matrimonial discord. The predicament of such a discontented partner (wife) is exacerbated when she is mentally/emotionally enervated due to, inter alia, an acceptable solution not seemingly forthcoming, as a result resorting to actuating a torsion of criminal prosecution. Yet, the abovesaid cannot be stated to be true in all the cases. Nevertheless, the fact remains, that the above-said situation is true for a large volume of cases being preferred in the Court(s). Ergo, the Courts ought to be prudent and cautious in dealing with such cases and must take into consideration all the pragmatic realities while evaluating the matrimonial discord related criminal cases. The Courts cannot be oblivious to countenancing the pragmatic and realistic necessities of time. The High Court, while exercising inherent and intrinsic powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of 1973; ought to countenance the tangible and concrete realities and cannot engirth itself in an ivory tower.

8.1 It has been observed, inveterately, that a wife after having entered into a willful and valid compromise/settlement with the accused-husband and/or his family members, tends to reap all the benefits thereof and, thereafter, does not step forward for under