JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 30 of 2020, dated 27.10.2020, registered under Sections 376, 323, 451 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short ‘IPC’) at Women Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra HP and quashing of proceedings initiated in pursuant thereto pending in the concerned Court. 2. Petitioner No.1 Rajneesh Kumari is complainant, who is present in Court today and vide separate statement on oath, she has stated that she is now wife of Shri Pankaj Sharma, petitioner No.2, and earlier he was married to Jeena Rani but their relations with each other were not cordial which resulted in filing of petition for divorce and registration of FIR and during separation from his first wife, petitioner No.2 Pankaj had come in her contract and they have decided to marry each other and started living together. It is further stated by her that there was delay in finalization of divorce petition filed by petitioner for dissolution of his earlier marriage with Jeena Rani and during that period, misunderstanding had cropped up between them, which resulted into lodging of FIR No. 30 of 2020 in October, 2020 in Women Police Station Dharamshala and at that time, she was under impression that petitioner No.2 Pankaj had cheated her and was not keen to solemnize marriage with her, but, later on from circumstances as well as conversation with petitioner No.2 everything was clear and ultimately divorce petition for dissolution of earlier marriage filed by petitioner was allowed with mutual consent of parties and that marriage was dissolved in December, 2020 and thereafter, petitioner had solemnized marriage with her on 29th December, 2020 in Pracheen Guga Marhi, Rama Krishan Mandir, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh and thereafter they are residing as husband and wife under one roof. She has also stated that now it is clear to her that delay in solemnizing the marriage was for the reason that earlier marriage of petitioner No.2 was not dissolved but under mistaken of belief being cheated, she had lodged the above said FIR and now she is residing happily with petitioner No.2 and in case criminal proceedings are continued in pursuant to FIR then her family life will be destroyed and therefore, she does not intend to proceed further in criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner No.2 and thus, she has decided and agreed to pray for withdrawal/quashing of above said FIR and a compromise deed (Annexure P-8) to this effect was reduced into writing between them which has been duly signed by her and she has also endorsed her signatures on compromise deed and further stated that, she has entered into the compromise with Pankaj petitioner No.2 out of her free will, consent and also without any kind of threat, coercion or pressure etc. 3. Petitioner No. 2 Pankaj is present in Court today and vide separate statement, he has stated that he has heard statement of complainant, who is now his wife, and endorsed the same to be true and correct. He has stated that lodging of FIR was on account of miscommunication, misunderstanding mistaken apprehension and now he has undertaken to take care of his wife and keep her happy in future. He has endorsed that compromise, duly signed by him, is out of his free will, consent and also without any kind of threat, coercion or pressure etc. 4. Quashing of FIR in present petition has been prayed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, photocopy whereof has been placed on record, which is duly signed by parties. Both petitioners have endorsed the compromise. 5. In reply, filed on behalf of respondent/State, quashing of FIR has been opposed on the ground that petitioner No.2 has been charge sheeted for commission of grave and heinous offences under Sections 376, 323, 451 and 506 IPC and there is every likelihood of his conviction before the trial Court and if present petition is allowed the whole practice and investigation conducted by police will become futile and it will be the sheer abuse of process of law. 6. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 6. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , explaining that High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with no statutory limitation including Section 320 Cr.PC, has held that these powers are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court and these powers can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings or complaint or FIR in appropriate cases where offender and victim have settled their dispute and for that purpose no definite category of offence can be prescribed. However, it is also observed that Courts must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and criminal proceedings in heinous and serious offences or offence like murder, rape and dacoity etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim family have settled the dispute with offender. Jurisdiction vested in High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases having overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership, or such like transactions, or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., family disputes or other such disputes where wrong is basically private or personal nature where parties mutually resolve their dispute amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for this purpose could be prescribed and each case has to be dealt with on its own merit but it is also clarified that this power does not extend to crimes against society. 7. The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017)9 SCC 641 summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. 8. 7. The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017)9 SCC 641 summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. 8. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2014)6 SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019)5 SCC 688 has summed up and laid down principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceedings. 9. No doubt Sections 376 IPC is not compoundable only with the permission of Court. However, as explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh’s, Narinder Singh’s Parbatbhai Aahir’s and Laxmi Narayan’s cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, if warranted in given facts and circumstances of the case for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, even in those cases which are not compoundable where parties have settled the matter between themselves. 10. In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008)4 SCC 582 the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized and advised that in the matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view of nature of this case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a commonsense approach, based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should be applied. 11. Observations with respect to individual, family and societal interest, made by this Court in case Rahul Thakur vs. State of H, reported in 2020(2) Shim.LC 629 , are also relevant in present case which are as under:- “13. 11. Observations with respect to individual, family and societal interest, made by this Court in case Rahul Thakur vs. State of H, reported in 2020(2) Shim.LC 629 , are also relevant in present case which are as under:- “13. Observation of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in similar case decided on 12.01.2017 in Cr.MMO No. 385 of 2016, titled as Chander Vir Kaundal vs. State of H.P., would also be relevant, where it is recorded that looking at the case from another angle, since the petitioner has solemnized marriage with respondent, obviously, there is no possibility of her supporting the charge in case the petitioner is put to trial. Therefore, in such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would only cause untoward torture or harassment apart from creating undue social and psychological pressure upon the private parties and it will be an extremely sad story in case complainant is called in the witness box to depose against the accused, who is none other than her husband. 14. In present case also, deposition of victim in the Court in consonance with prosecution case would lead to landing her husband and parents in jail and pushing her in pitch dark and unnecessary trouble. 15. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has also referred to judgments passed by the Coordinate Benches in Cr.MMO No. 301 of 2018, decided on 24.04.2019, titled as Asha Devi & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another; Cr.MMO No. 399 of 2018, decided on 18.09.2018, titled as Kajal & another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another; Cr.MMO No. 244 of 2019, decided on 07.05.2019 titled as X vs. State of H.P. & others, Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 139 of 2018, decided on 26.5.2018, titled Sahil Chaudhary vs. State of H.P. and another, Cr.MMO No. 464 of 2018 decided on 9.8.2019 titled as Shri Devi vs. State of H.P. and another, Cr.MMO No. 377 of 2019 decided on 27.8.2019 titled as Shishpal vs. State of H.P. and another and Cr.MMO No. 41 of 2019 decided on 24.9.2019 titled as Ravi Goyal and another vs. State of H.P. and others wherein FIRs registered under Section 376 IPC and in some cases under Section 376 IPC read with provisions of POCSO Act have also been quashed in similar circumstances where victims and accused had married to each other. 16. 16. The ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court on the issue of permitting quashing of FIR in such cases, the Courts must consider the interest of public at large and the offence offending the Society at large should not be permitted to be compromised and quashing of FIR or criminal proceedings on the basis of such compromise should not be permitted. Present case is somewhat different from general category, as in present case, it is not on the basis of compromise that quashing of FIR has been sought for, but it is a case where interest of victim is also involved and welfare of victim appears to be in closing criminal proceedings as she has proclaimed herself to be wife of accused and the case has been registered against petitioner-accused, only for the reason that at that time victim below 18 years of age and further, it is not a case where it can be said that victim was abducted forcefully and ravished mercilessly and was used as an instrument of enjoyment and thrown out after the use but it is a case where sexual intercourse was consensual for misrepresentation on the part of victim and now victim is living in her matrimonial house happily. Now in the facts and circumstances of the case, this case cannot be termed as a case subjecting the victim-complainant forcibly to illicit sexual intercourse. Further, it is a peculiar kind of case where there is a conflict between interest of victim and societal interest. Interest of victim is not purely private in nature as rehabilitation and survival of victim is another issue which involves public interest because to ensure rehabilitation and provide resources for survival of victim is also responsibility of society. Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, balance lies in favour of the prayer of the victim. 17. Family is a primary unit of society, which gives protection to all family members. Therefore, there is always endeavour to save the family. By saving a family, we definitely save the fabric of society and thus any endeavour to save the family is also interest of society. 17. Family is a primary unit of society, which gives protection to all family members. Therefore, there is always endeavour to save the family. By saving a family, we definitely save the fabric of society and thus any endeavour to save the family is also interest of society. Therefore, in present case, there is conflict of interest not only between victim and societal interest but also amongst divergent societal interest i.e. to continue proceedings for commission of an offence having adverse impact on the society and to save the family in larger interest of society.” 12. Keeping in view the fact that complainant, who appeared in person and endorsed the compromise arrived at with petitioner No.2/accused and now they are living happily under one roof, I find that it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and further even otherwise, in view of statement of the complainant, if criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, the same will adversely affect the married life of complainant and she will be a victim of a case, which has been registered by her for protecting her own interest. 13. Considering facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that present petition deserves to be allowed for ends of justice and the same is allowed accordingly and FIR No. 30 of 2020, dated 27.10.2020, registered against the petitioner No.2/accused under Sections 376, 323, 451 and 506 IPC at Women P.S. Dharamshala, District Kangra H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of said FIR, criminal proceedings pending in the concerned Court are also quashed. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending application, if any.