Dr. Jaishree @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.105/2018 of Police

Station Hiran Magri, District Udaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 377 IPC and Section 67 of Information and

Technology Act.

Brief facts of the case are that the impugned FIR has been lodged at the instance of respondent No.2 against her husband, mother-in-law and father-

in-law raising certain allegations regarding demand of dowry misappropriation of stridhan etc.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the complaint filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, proceedings under Sections 498-A, 406

and 377 IPC and Section 67 of Information and Technology Act are pending. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that during

the course of investigation into the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR, the petitioners, their son and the respondent No.2 have entered into a

compromise and on the basis of it, the matrimonial dispute between them has been resolved amicably. It is submitted that the petitioners, their son and

the respondent No.2 have decided to end the marriage, solemnized between the respondent No.2 and the son of the petitioners and all the pending

disputes between them have been resolved amicably.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since the matrimonial dispute has already been amicably settled between the parties the impugned

FIR for the aforesaid offences pending against the petitioners may kindly be quashed.

Mr. P.C. Solanki counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has conceded that the matrimonial dispute between the respondent No.2 and her in-laws

i.e. petitioners has already been settled amicably and now the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR.

It is submitted by both the learned counsel for the parties that the respondent No.2 and her husband has agreed to file a petition for mutual divorce

before the concerned family court under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act in the month of October 2018.

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report dated 08.07.2018, wherein it is mentioned by SHO, Police Station Hiran Magri, District

Udaipur that the matrimonial dispute between the petitioners, their son and respondent No.2 have been settled amicably and the respondent No.2 does

not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR.Â

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

It is admitted that the matrimonial dispute between the parties has already been settled amicably and the same has been verified by the Investigating

Officer in its report dated 08.07.2018.

Today also learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has categorically submitted that the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations

levelled in the impugned FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 377 IPC and Section 67 of Information and Technology Act

as the matrimonial dispute has already been resolved between the parties.

 The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SCâ€"426, has

held as below:-

“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding

or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the

offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the

guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to

quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the

facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due

regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be

fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and

have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like

Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for

quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on

different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences 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 personal in

nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because

of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put

accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete

settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of

justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite

settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to

an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal

proceeding.â€​

It is noticed that the dispute between the parties was in relation to marriage of respondent No.2 and son of petitioners, wherein the allegations

regarding demand of dowry and misappropriation of stridhan etc. have been levelled by the respondent No.2. It seems that the dispute was in the

nature of matrimonial dispute and now settled between the parties.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the matrimonial dispute between the parties has already been

settled amicably and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A, 406 and 377 IPC and Section 67 of Information and Technology Act, it is a fit case wherein the impugned FIR pending against the

petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Â

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra) and in the facts and circumstances as noted above this

criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.105/2018 of Police Station Hiran Magri, District Udaipur for the offences punishable under Sections

498-A, 406 and 377 IPC and Section 67 of Information and Technology Act is hereby quashed.

Stay petition is disposed of.

The factual report dated 08.07.2018 be taken on record.