The court confirmed the authority to quash FIRs based on amicable settlements, emphasizing the importance of preventing abuse of legal processes.

on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

29.04

.2024

1. Heard Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Anil Tripathi, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

2. The present petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner for quashment of First Information Report bearing FIR No. 67/2023 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, Gariaband, District – Gariyaband dated 11.03.2023 and charge- sheet bearing Crime No. 82/2023 dated 23.04.2024 registered against the petitioner at the instance of the complainant / private respondents for commission of alleged offence under Section 304A of IPC read with Section 135 of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Act on the basis of compromise between the parties.

3. Brief facts of the case are the private respondents had lodged a report on 17.12.2022 at around 2.00 pm, alleging that their son Durgesh and Sanskar Kashyap had got an electric shock and died when they came in contact with the iron fencing to protect the farm land, while they are playing because a live wire got in touch with the iron fencing. It is alleged that the petitioner had a connection for running his bore well and the wire connected with the iron fencing of the farm of Devsingh.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners and the complainant / respondent No.2 & 3 have amicably settled their all disputes and difference mutually outside the Court and an compromise deed has also been entered into between the parties on 11.03.2023 to the effect that the incident was caused by accident and they did not want to any criminal proceeding and their statements have with regard to compromise also been recorded and verified before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court on 18.04.2024.

5. Learned counsel, appearing for the private respondent Nos.2 & 3 also admitted the said fact.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

7. The scope and ambit of the power conferred on this Court by Section 482 of the CrPC read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in the particular context of prayer for quashing criminal proceedings has been examined by the Supreme Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and thereafter in the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and ultimately, noticing the aforesaid decisions, finally, in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the context of matrimonial disputes resulting into criminal proceedings, 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.

16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate the