ORDER : All these three criminal miscellaneous petitions, though involve different facts and arises out of different first information reports, but substantially raise a common question of law. They have been therefore clubbed together for the purpose of decision and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. In all these three petitions, the petitioners are either husband or his relatives, who have been made accused in the first information reports for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC lodged at the instance of complainant-respondent-wife. The respondents-wives in all these three petitions, have compromised the matters and filed the compromise deed before the court concerned and also obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent where they agreed to get the proceedings in criminal cases lodged at their instances dropped/quashed in terms of the compromise deed. But they have later on changed their mind and decided to pursue such criminal matters. It is precisely for this reason that all these petitions have been filed on behalf of accused-petitioners for quashment of the proceedings in respective criminal cases. It is matter of coincidence that all these matters happened to be listed today. Though they were heard separately but are now being decided by this common judgment. 3. Before proceeding to deal with the matters on merits, I deem it appropriate to briefly narrate the facts of each case in the sequence they are mentioned herein above. Petition No.4737/2014 4. This petition has been filed by accused- petitioner-husband for quashment of proceedings in Criminal Case No.5958/2012 pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.14, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, arising out of F.I.R. No.127/2011, Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East), for offence under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Petitioner and non-petitioner no.2 married each other on 15.02.2009. But due to strained relations between them, the non-petitioner no.2 filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.14, Jaipur Metropolitan, who forwarded the same to the police station under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation. On that basis, an F.I.R. No.127/2011 was registered for offence under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC. After investigation, police filed challan on 30.09.2011 against petitioners in the said court for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. Learned trial court framed charges against the petitioner for those offences. 6. On that basis, an F.I.R. No.127/2011 was registered for offence under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC. After investigation, police filed challan on 30.09.2011 against petitioners in the said court for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. Learned trial court framed charges against the petitioner for those offences. 6. During pendency of the criminal case, the parties arrived at compromise to withdraw the criminal case and get a decree of divorce by mutual consent. They jointly submitted a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court No.1. The Family Court accordingly passed decree of divorce by mutual consent on 29.06.2013. It was clearly agreed upon between the parties that due to strained relations they had been living separately since 01.05.2011 and in 2013 they got decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and accordingly they got criminal case withdrawn/decided in terms of the compromise. Grievance of the accused-petitioner is that the respondent-wife is not cooperating in getting the criminal cases initiated at her instance withdrawn in terms of the compromise. 7. Mr. Dhoop Singh Poonia, learned counsel for accused-petitioner, submitted that despite having obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent on the basis of compromise entered between the parties, the respondent-wife now cannot be permitted to continue with the prosecution of the petitioner. She undertook before the Family Court that she would withdraw the prosecution of the petitioner for offence under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC as also the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pending in the court and also cooperate the petitioner husband in withdrawing the proceedings in the criminal case. The prosecution of the accused-petitioner now in the facts of the case would be nothing but mere abuse of the process of the court. He submitted that in order to secure the ends of justice, the proceedings in the criminal case be quashed. Petition No.427/2015 8. This petition has been filed by accused- petitioners for quashment of the proceedings in Criminal Case No.354/2005 State Vs. Darshan and Others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), South, Ajmer. 9. He submitted that in order to secure the ends of justice, the proceedings in the criminal case be quashed. Petition No.427/2015 8. This petition has been filed by accused- petitioners for quashment of the proceedings in Criminal Case No.354/2005 State Vs. Darshan and Others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), South, Ajmer. 9. Marriage of petitioner no.8 Darshan Kumar and respondent no.2 Manju Jodhawat took place on 15.05.2002, and thereafter on account of certain disputes, the respondent-wife lodged F.I.R. No.83/2002 on 06.07.2002 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Ajmer for offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC against the petitioners. After investigation, the police filed challan against petitioners for the said offences. Petitioner no.8 is husband of respondent no.2. Inter-se relationship of petitioners amongst themselves is that petitioner no.1 is maternal grandfather of petitioner no.8, petitioners no.2, 3 and 4 are his brothers, petitioner no.5 is his sister-in-law (bhabhi), and petitioners no.6 and 7 are his father and mother, respectively. Accordingly all the petitioners are her relatives though in in-laws. Learned trial court framed charges against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences and proceeded with the trial. 10. The respondent-wife filed an Application No.254/2002 under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Ajmer, against petitioner no.8 husband. During pendency of that application, both husband and wife entered into settlement and jointly filed application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marraige Act for getting a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Their statements were recorded by the Family Court, wherein respondent-wife clearly stated that she will get the criminal case for offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC withdrawn. Relying upon the statements made by the husband and wife, the Family Court passed judgment and decree dated 25.04.2005 granting them decree of divorce by mutual consent. At page 3 of the judgment dated 25.04.2005 it is clearly stated that the respondent-wife has agreed to end the proceedings in criminal case for offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. On that basis, the petitioners moved an application before the trial court to drop the proceedings in criminal case pending against them and discharge them of the charge, which was opposed by respondent-wife. Learned trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 04.07.2006. The petitioners have challenged that order before this court by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1622/2006 – Darshan and Others Vs. Learned trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 04.07.2006. The petitioners have challenged that order before this court by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1622/2006 – Darshan and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others and that was disposed of by this court vide order dated 23.02.2012 with direction to learned trial court to conclude the trial within a period of six months. Thereafter, the evidence of the respondent-wife was recorded. The respondent-wife took a somersault and instead of complying with the terms of the compromise, made allegations against the petitioners in her statement. Learned court below is now proceeding with the trial of the case. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has again applied this court by means of this petition for quashment of proceedings in Criminal Case No.354/2005 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, South, Ajmer. 11. Mr. Peush Nag, learned counsel for accused- petitioners argued that whole purpose of the respondent-wife in insisting upon continuation of criminal proceedings is to harass and humiliate the accused-petitioners. It is sheer abuse of the process on the part of the respondent-wife, who compromised the matter and also obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent, and has now gone back upon her promise. The respondent-wife herself stated before the Family Court in her statement that she would not raise any grievance in future and that there now remains no dispute between the parties in regard to any money. She also agreed that she would get the proceedings in criminal case for offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC withdrawn. The respondent-wife also put her signatures on the application filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, which was supported by her affidavit, which were Exhibit D-2 and Exhibit D-3. She also admitted her statement recorded before the Family Court, which was Exhibit D-4, that she would withdraw the criminal case for offence under Section 498A, with regard to which she would file an application in the court. The conduct of the respondent-wife is therefore liable to be deprecated. Petition No.4242/2015 12. She also admitted her statement recorded before the Family Court, which was Exhibit D-4, that she would withdraw the criminal case for offence under Section 498A, with regard to which she would file an application in the court. The conduct of the respondent-wife is therefore liable to be deprecated. Petition No.4242/2015 12. This petition has been filed by accused- petitioners, namely, Manoj Kumar (husband of complainant-respondent) and his mother Smt. Rambai (mother-in-law of complainant-respondent) for quashment of proceedings in Criminal Case No.987/2015 (334/2014), pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan, in view of the compromise dated 14.08.2014 entered into between the parties. 13. The marriage of accused-petitioner no.1 and complainant-respondent no.2 was solemnized at Jaipur on 07.02.2006 and thereafter certain disputes arose between them. Owing thereto, the complainant-respondent filed F.I.R. No.19/2014 at Police Station Mahila Thana (South), Jaipur, for offence under Sections 498A, 406, 506 and 323 IPC. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet on 12.11.2014 before the trial court. The case then came to be transferred to the court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan, for trial of the petitioners for offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. 14. Thereafter, the parties, to settle the entire controversy amicably and in a dignified manner, arrived at compromise on 14.08.2014 and executed the compromise deed dated 14.08.2014. The petitioner-husband and respondent-wife, as per terms of the compromise-deed, submitted a joint application before the Family Court No.1, Jaipur under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, praying for decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent. In the application, it was clearly stated that both the parties shall withdraw the criminal proceedings filed against each other and the respondent-wife will not claim any maintenance in future and that there now remained no dispute between the parties. Even the respondent-wife, in her statement recorded before the Family Court, categorically admitted to having received a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- by way of permanent alimony and further stated that she did not have any kind of subsisting dispute with petitioner husband so far the 'stridhan' and maintenance are concerned. The Family Court No.1, Jaipur, vide judgment dated 02.06.2015, allowed the joint application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and dissolved the marriage of the parties vide decree by mutual consent. 15. Mr. The Family Court No.1, Jaipur, vide judgment dated 02.06.2015, allowed the joint application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and dissolved the marriage of the parties vide decree by mutual consent. 15. Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the compromise deed was produced before the Investigating Officer but he ignored the same and filed charge-sheet. The petitioners also produced compromise deed before the trial court at the time of taking cognizance but learned trial court also ignored the same and took cognizance on 01.12.2014 against the petitioners for offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. It is submitted that the trial court was under obligation to drop the proceedings in the criminal case in view of the compromise entered into between the parties. Hence this petition. 16. Learned counsel argued that the respondent-wife has received a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards permanent alimony and had no dispute with regard to 'stridhan' and maintenance. In the compromise-deed, it was agreed that the parties shall withdraw the cases registered against each other; whether civil or criminal. It was also agreed that the respondent-wife shall not demand any further amount of maintenance. In view of the compromise-deed, the respondent-wife was duty bound to move the trial court to drop the proceedings in the criminal case but she has taken a somersault and thus abused the process of the court. 17. It is argued that the respondent-wives, having settled the disputes by executing compromise deeds and on that basis obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent, now cannot be permitted to take a somersault and insist on prosecution of the accused-petitioners for offence under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agarwal and Others – 2005 (1) WLC (SC) Criminal 337. 18. Mr. N.S. Dhakar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, Mr. Anil Upman as well as Mr. Vipul Jaiman, learned counsel for the respondents wives, opposed the petitions and submitted that prosecution under Section 498A and 406 IPC is independent of the proceedings before the Family Court under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, where the husband and wife can obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Anil Upman as well as Mr. Vipul Jaiman, learned counsel for the respondents wives, opposed the petitions and submitted that prosecution under Section 498A and 406 IPC is independent of the proceedings before the Family Court under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, where the husband and wife can obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The respondent wives having satisfied the terms and conditions of the compromise, would not now be bound to withdraw the prosecution against the accused-petitioners. 19. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and also perused the material on record. 20. These matters clearly indicate a reverse trend where the wives despite having compromised the dispute with their husbands and on that basis obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent, yet want the prosecution against the husbands and their family members to continue so that they are compelled to go through the ordeal of attending the protracted proceedings in the criminal cases, and suffer ignominy of facing the whole process of trial till the same attain finality, keep visiting their advocates, incurring expenses and face the hardships and mental agony. Admittedly, the petitioner-husbands have discharged their part of the obligation as agreed in the terms of compromise. The respondent-wives having received the decree of divorce from the petitioner-husbands without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, cannot now be allowed to go back upon their proclaimed stand and take a somersault. Contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-wives that criminal proceedings are independent of divorce proceedings, in the facts of the case, cannot be accepted. The conduct of the respondent-wives clearly indicates that the criminal proceedings filed by them were only intended to harass the accused-petitioners. In view of the subsequent events and the conduct of the respondent-wives, allowing the criminal proceedings of the petitioners to go on, would indeed be an abuse of process of the court. 21. This is very unfortunate that the respondents wives are now backing out from their undertaking. They are estopped in law from withdrawing their undertakings and representation. This would amount to misleading the court. From the agreements entered into between the parties and which are confirmed by them in Court, no doubt is left that this was a compromise/settlement for divorce by consent decree as well as for quashing the criminal proceedings. They are estopped in law from withdrawing their undertakings and representation. This would amount to misleading the court. From the agreements entered into between the parties and which are confirmed by them in Court, no doubt is left that this was a compromise/settlement for divorce by consent decree as well as for quashing the criminal proceedings. By denying to honour that agreement, they are certainly misusing the process of the Court. The Court would not allow a party to misuse its process. In the exercise of this wholesome power, this court can quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court. If it is satisfied that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed, it can do so, despite objection by respondent-wives. The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify this court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. Though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature but the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law 22. In Ruchi Agarwal, supra, a complaint was lodged by the appellant-wife alleging offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, a divorce petition was filed by her. In the said divorce petition, a compromise was arrived between the parties in which it was stated that the first respondent- husband was willing for a consent divorce and that the appellant-wife had received all her maintenance and 'stridhan' in lump sum. It was also stated in the said compromise deed that the parties to the proceedings would withdraw all civil and criminal complaints filed against each other. Notwithstanding the compromise, the appellant-wife did not take any steps to withdraw the said complaint. Noting that the appellant-wife had signed the compromise deed and the first respondent- husband performed his part of obligation under the compromise deed, the Supreme Court while quashing the complaint, observed thus: “6. Notwithstanding the compromise, the appellant-wife did not take any steps to withdraw the said complaint. Noting that the appellant-wife had signed the compromise deed and the first respondent- husband performed his part of obligation under the compromise deed, the Supreme Court while quashing the complaint, observed thus: “6. From the above narrated facts, it is clear that in the compromise petition filed before the Family Court, the appellant admitted that she has received Stridhan and maintenance in lump sum and that she will not be entitled to maintenance of any kind in future. She also undertook to withdraw all proceedings civil and criminal filed and initiated by her against the respondents within one month of the compromise deed which included the complaint under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act from which complaint this appeal arises. In the said compromise, the respondent- husband agreed to withdraw his petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending before the Senior Judge, Civil Division, Rampur and also agreed to give a consent divorce as sought for by the appellant. 7. It is based on the said compromise the appellant obtained a divorce as desired by her under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act and in partial compliance of the terms of the compromise she withdrew the criminal case filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code but for reasons better known to her she did not withdraw that complaint from which this appeal arises. That apart after the order of the High Court quashing the said complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, she has chosen to file this appeal. It is in this background, we will have to appreciate the merits of this appeal. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, however, contended, that though the appellant had signed the compromise deed with the above-mentioned terms in it, the same was obtained by the respondent-husband and his family under threat and coercion and in fact she did not receive lump sum maintenance and her Stridhan properties, we find it extremely difficult to accept this argument in the background of the fact that pursuant to the compromise deed the respondent- husband has given her a consent divorce which she wanted and thus had performed his part of obligation under the compromise deed. Even the appellant partially performed her part of obligations by withdrawing her criminal complaint filed under Section 125. It is true that she made a complaint to the Family Court where Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings were pending that the compromise deed was filed under coercion but she withdrew the same and gave a statement before the said court affirming the terms of the compromise which statement was recorded by the Family Court and the proceedings were dropped and a divorce was obtained. Therefore, we are of the opinion that appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant. In opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents. 9. In view of the said subsequent events and the conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that to do complete justice, we should while dismissing this appeal also quash proceedings arising from the Criminal Case No. 224/2003 registered in police station, Bilaspur, (Distt. Rampur) filed under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents herein. It is ordered accordingly. Appeal is disposed of.” 23. The Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another (2010) 7 SCC 667 , discussing at great length the scope and ambit of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and prevailing trend in the society, observed that rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is a matter of serious concern but also observed that it is a matter of experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. The courts have come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. The courts have come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. It was observed that the learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. Learned members of the Bar, who belong to a noble profession, must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every such complaint as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. It was further observed that at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to not only the complainant but also to accused and his close relations. The Supreme Court observed that it is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. The relevant discussion made by the Supreme Court in para 35 and 36 of the report, is reproduced as under:- “35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 36. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 24. In the light of aforementioned discussion, and noting the fact that the complainant-respondents-wives had entered into written agreements/compromise, this court is persuaded to allow all the three petitions. These petitions are accordingly allowed and (1) the proceedings in Criminal Case No.5958/2012 State Vs. Mukesh Jangir pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.14, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, for offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC arising out of F.I.R. No.127/2011 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East), (2) the proceedings in Criminal Case No.354/2005 – State Vs. Darshan and Others pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (South), Ajmer arising out of F.I.R. No.83/2002, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Ajmer for offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, and (3) the proceedings in Criminal Case No.987/2015 (334/2014) – State Vs. Manoj Kumar and Another, arising out of F.I.R. No.19/2014, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana (South), Jaipur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan, are hereby quashed. All the three First Information Reports, referred to be above, would also be deemed to be quashed. This also disposes of stay applications. 10. Manoj Kumar and Another, arising out of F.I.R. No.19/2014, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana (South), Jaipur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan, are hereby quashed. All the three First Information Reports, referred to be above, would also be deemed to be quashed. This also disposes of stay applications. 10. While quashing the proceedings in the aforesaid cases, this court in the context of what was observed by the Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta, supra, deems it appropriate to forward a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission of India through its Member Secretary, New Delhi, and the Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi, for their consideration as a material for case study in formulating their view for amending the provisions of Section 498-A of the IPC while ensuring its effective implementation but also at the same time preventing its excessive misuse. 11. Office to place a copy of this order in connected files.