- (1.) Petitioners Ravi and Kalawati have preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.179 dated 06.06.2013 (Annexure P-1), registered at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal, under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506, 34 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure P-2). Complainant Baby got recorded her statement to the police in which she stated that her marriage with accused Ravi was solemnized on 27.11.2009 and her parents spent about Rs. 4,00,000/- on the dowry articles as well as reception of 'barat'. After some days of the marriage, accused started maltreating and misbehaving with the complainant for not bringing adequate dowry. In the month of March, 2010, the accused asked the complainant to bring motorcycle from her parents otherwise she will not be allowed to live in her matrimonial home. The complainant tried them to understand that her parents have already spent huge money on the dowry articles and now they are not in a position to meet the said demand. On this accused became furious towards the complainant and started beating her on one pretext or the other and asked her to bring more dowry. On the statement of complainant, FIR was registered against the accused. With the intervention of the respectable persons the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Compromise deed (Annexure-P-2 ) in this regard has been entered into between the parties. Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before learned trial Court for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. After doing the needful, learned trial Court has sent its report dated 06.06.2014 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one. Complainant Baby has stated that the matter has been compromised between them with the intervention of the respectables, which is voluntary, without any coercion and undue influence from any quarter and she has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed.
(2.) Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant admits the factum of compromise and submits that in case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant.
(3.) In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 4 RCR(Cri) 543, has held that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the proceedings in respect of criminal cases arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute even though they are not compoundable.;