Criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes can be quashed when parties have voluntarily entered into a settlement, and one party cannot resile except on grounds of fraud, force, or undue influence; continuation thereafter amounts to abuse of process.

Order

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made to quash and set aside the entire proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR No. 175/2013, registered with the Mahila Police Station, District Kota City for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, and a further challenge has also been led to the impugned order dated 04.07.2013, by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Kota in Criminal Case No. 134/2013 for the above stated offences.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that marriage of the accused-petitioner was solemnised with the complainant-respondent No. 2 on 31.10.2012 but their marriage could not pull on well, therefore, the accused-petitioner submitted an application under Section 12 & 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Ahmedabad on 22.04.2013. Counsel further submits that in counterblast to the aforesaid application for divorce, the impugned FIR was registered by the complainant-respondent against the accused-petitioner on 07.05.2013.

3. Counsel submits that during pendency of the investigation in the impugned FIR and the proceedings before the Family Court, Ahmedabad, the parties have amicably settled their dispute by entering into a compromise on 20.05.2013 and it was mutually agreed that the complainant-respondent would withdraw the impugned FIR No. 175/13 from the concerned Police Station and the accused-petitioner would pay a lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- in cash and Rs. 3,01,000/- by way of Demand Draft to the complainant, as permanent maintenance and the complainant- respondent has agreed not to demand any maintenance in the future. The complainant-respondent has also received her stridhan along with other articles received by her during the marriage. Counsel submits that the entire amount was paid by the accused- petitioner to the complainant-respondent and the receipts in this regard are available on the record. He further submits that at the time of execution of the aforesaid compromise between the parties, the accused-petitioner was in police custody and on the basis of the aforesaid compromise, the petitioner was released on bail.

4. Counsel submits that in furtherance of the aforesaid compromise, the acused-petitioner withdrew the application submitted by him under Section 12 & 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Ahmedabad. Counsel submits that even after receipt of the aforesaid amount of permanent maintenance by the complainant-respondent and release of the accused- petitioner from jail, the complainant-respondent never turned up before any Court of Law for rejuvenation of their marriage. Thereafter, a social divorce took place between the parties and the complainant-respondent has solemnised second marriage with another person namely Omprakash. In spite of the above development of the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuation of such proceedings against the accused-petitioner tantamounts to abuse of the process of law. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the impugned proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR No. 175/2013 be quashed on the basis of the aforesaid compromise.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made in the instant petition.

6. None has put appearance on behalf of the respondent No.2 inspite of service.

7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

8. Considering the arguments