- (1.) BY way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Code'), petitioners/accused, who are fatherin - law, mother -in -law and husband of complainant/respondent No.2 -Nisha, seek quashing of First Information Report (for short, 'FIR') No.4 dated 27.01.2012 (Annexure P -1) recorded, under Sections 406, 498 -A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'), at Police Station, Women Cell, Ludhiana, on the basis of a compromise.
(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners and respondent No.2 have settled the matter and on the basis of the settlement, marriage between petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved vide judgment and decree dated 03.09.2013 passed in HMA case No.160 of 27.02.2012, by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana (Annexure P -4). Complainant/respondent No.2 has chosen not to appear, despite service. On behalf of the respondent -State, a reply of contest has been filed.
(3.) DURING the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Annexure P -2, copy of statement of complainant/respondent No.2 -Nisha recorded in the proceedings under Section 13 -B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. According to this statement, complainant/respondent No.2 admitted before the aforesaid court that she has settled the matter with her husband and under the settlement she has received an amount of Rs.5 lacs towards final settlement of all her claims against her husband and at the same time she also undertook to make necessary statement in the present proceedings for quashing of the aforesaid FIR. Based on the statement of complainant/respondent No.2, marriage between the parties has been dissolved by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, as stated hereinbefore. By not appearing, despite service, complainant/respondent No.2 has in a way signified her disinclination to contest the petition and to proceed with the aforesaid FIR and proceedings arising therefrom. From the statement (Annexure P -2) of complainant/respondent No.2 made before learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, it also comes out that she has settled the matter with her husband and has no objection if the present proceedings are terminated by quashing the aforesaid FIR and proceedings arising therefrom. State Counsel also has no objection if the petition is accepted. From the above it is established that the parties to the lis have resolved their inter se dispute amicably and have resolved to live in peace and harmony. In B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Anr., 2003 4 SCC 675, the husband was one of the appellants while the wife was Respondent No. 2 in the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. They were living separately for quite some time. An FIR was registered under Sections 498 -A/323 and 406, IPC at the instance of the wife. When the criminal case registered at the instance of the wife was pending, the dispute between the husband and wife and their family members was settled. Wife filed an affidavit that her disputes with the husband and the other members of his family had been finally settled and she and her husband had agreed for mutual divorce. Based on the said affidavit, the matter was taken to the High Court by both the parties and they jointly prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings launched against the husband and his family members on the basis of the FIR registered at the wife's instance under Sections 498 -A and 406, IPC. The High Court dismissed the petition for quashing the FIR as, in its view, the offences under Sections 498 - A and 406, IPC were non -compoundable and the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code could not be invoked to by -pass Section 320 of the Code. It is from this order that the matter reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Apex Court held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers could quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code and held "14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX -A containing Section 498 -A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498 -A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non -exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX -A of the Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers Under Section 482 of the Code.";