ORDER : This petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 0018, dated 19.10.2021 registered under Sections 498-A, 323 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 Vikas Singh Rana as well as respondent No.2, who is complainant in present case, are present in Court today and their statements have been recorded on oath. 3. Respondent No.2 Labreet Kumari vide separate statement on oath, has stated that her marriage was solemnized with Vikas Singh Rana, petitioner No.1, on 9th May, 2007 . She has stated that at that time, petitioner No.1 was serving in Army and now he has retired from service in the year 2019. She has further deposed that they have two sons namely Akash Rana and Akarsh Rana, who are studying in 9th and 4th standard respectively. It has further been stated by respondent No.2 that on account of harassment and cruelty, she had lodged complaint against her husband as well as her parents-in-law, as detailed in FIR and during strained relations, she had been staying with her mother at Nagrota Bagwan and apart from lodging present FIR, she had also filed complaint under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, and a Civil Suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kangra at Dharamshala and those cases have been settled and comprised in National Lok Adalat on 12th March, 2022 and as per compromise, her husband Vikas Singh has undertaken to keep her and children with love and to maintain them by providing all facilities in a house owned by her husband at Sidhpur, Dharamshala and he has undertaken to bear the expenses for study of both children studying in Secret Heart School and G.D. Goenka Schools situated at Dharamshala with further undertaking that he will ensure that there is no scarcity for anything to her and their children and not to repeat incident of beating and he has also communicated no objection for continuation of her job. 4. Respondent No.2 has further stated that her parents-inlaw i.e. petitioners No. 2 and 3 Mr. 4. Respondent No.2 has further stated that her parents-inlaw i.e. petitioners No. 2 and 3 Mr. Janak Singh and Smt. Narindera Kumari are residing in native village Ghaneta, Sub Tehsil Sulh, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra H.P. along with her grandmother-in-law Smt Kalyano Devi. She has stated that till date no untoward incident has taken place between them and her husband is keeping them well and is maintaining them as undertaken by him, and for future of children as well as for continuation of peaceful, harmonious and cordial relations between the family for living a healthy and peaceful life, she has decided not to pursue criminal case against her husband and parents-in-law and, therefore, she has entered into compromise and as per compromise, she may be permitted to withdraw the complaint for quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings arising thereto. She has further stated that as her parents-in-law are residing at separate place i.e. in native village, therefore, she thinks that for compromising the present case, which has arisen due to strained relations between husband and wife, their presence deserves to be exempted and she has prayed accordingly. 5. Petitioner Vikas Singh Rana, vide separate statement, has endorsed the statement of his wife to be true and correct. He has undertaken to be careful in future. 6. Respondent No.2 as well as petitioner No.1, in their respective statements, have stated that they have compromised the matter and deposed in the Court out of their free will, consent and also without any kind of threat, coercion or pressure etc. 7. 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. Petitioner No.1 Vikas Rana and respondent No.2 Labreet Kaur have endorsed the compromise. 8. As per status report, filed on behalf of respondent/State, quashing of FIR has been opposed on the ground that on the directions of District Attorney, Section 323 IPC has been added and there is every likelihood of conviction of petitioners before the trial Court and if present petition is allowed the whole exercise and investigation conducted by police will become futile and it will be the sheer abuse of process of law. 9. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. No doubt Section 498-A IPC is not compoundable, 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 14. 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. ………….. 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. 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.” 15. It is also a case where two societal interests are in clash. 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.” 15. It is also a case where two societal interests are in clash. To punish the offenders for a crime, involved in present case, is in the interest of society, but, at the same time, husband is taking care of wife and children and in case, husband is convicted and sentenced for societal interest, then, wife and children will be in great trouble and their future would be ruined. It is also in the interest of society to settle and re-settle the family for welfare and future of wife and children. 16. Keeping in view the fact that complainant, who appeared in person and endorsed the compromise arrived at with petitioners/accused and now she as well as her children 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. 17. 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. 0018, dated 19.10.2021 registered against the petitioners/accused at Women Police Station 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. The parties are permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the concerned authority shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, they may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.