1. The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 4 of 2020, dated 04.03.2020, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Women Police Station, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R.

2. It has been asserted that the matter was settled between the parties. A joint petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed, which was allowed by the learned Family Court, Chamba, H.P. A permanent alimony of ₹11,00,000/- was paid by the husband to the informant, and it was agreed that all pending litigation, including the present F.I.R., would be of withdrawn. The continuation of the proceedings after the compromise amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the present petition.

3. Notice of the petition was issued to the informant, but the informant did not appear before the Court despite service, which shows that she has nothing to say in the matter.

4. The State has filed a status report reproducing the contents of the F.I.R. and mentioning the investigation conducted by the police.

5. I have heard Mr Anuj Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

6. Mr Anuj Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the matter was amicably settled between the parties. The informant made a statement before the learned Family Court, Chamba, H.P., that she would withdraw all the proceedings initiated by her. The continuation of the present proceedings after the compromise amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed.

7. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the informant has not of appeared before this Court to affirm the compromise; therefore, the present petition should not be quashed based on the compromise. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records meticulously.

9. The certified copy of the statement made by the informant, Pratibha Kumari, before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chamba, H.P., shows that she had accepted ₹11,00,000/- as payment alimony, and agreed to withdraw the complaint filed by her under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and all other cases pending against the co-petitioner.

10. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shlok Bhardwaj vs. Runika Bhardwaj & Ors. 2015 (2) SCC 721, that once the matter was settled between the parties and the settlement was given effect to in the form of mutual consent, no dispute survives between the parties, and the wife could not continue with the proceedings against her husband. It was of observed:

          "11. It is clear from perusal of the impugned order [Runika Bhardwaj v. State of U.P., Criminal Revision No. 1159 of rt 2002, decided on 21-11-2006 (All)] of the High Court that the development of a settlement between the parties during the pendency of the revision petition has not even been adverted to. Once the matter was settled between the parties and the said settlement was given effect to in the form of divorce by mutual consent, no further dispute survived between the parties, though it was not so expressly recorded in the order of this Court. No liberty was reserved by the wife to continue further proceedings against the husband. Thus, the wife was, after settling the matter, estopped from continuing the proceedings.

11. This judgment was followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Krishan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 4879, wherein it was observed: -

          "7. A similar question arose for consideration before the Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal, (2004) 4 RCR (Cri) 949, wherein the wife, despite a compromise, did not put in an appearance to get her statement recorded for the withdrawal of cases filed by her under Sections498-Aand506of the IPC. The facts were similar to those in the instant case, and the Supreme Court in para 7 of the judgment came to hold that: --

          "7. xx xx xx Therefore, we are of the opinion that the 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 our 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.

          8. The judgment as rendered in Ruchi Agarwal(supra) has of subsequently been followed in Mohd. Shamimv.Smt. Nahid Begum, (2005) 1 RCR (Cri) 697 and Shlok Bhardwaj v. Runika Bhardwaj, (2015) 2 SCC 721, wherein it has been held that after the matter has been settled between the parties, the wife is estopped from continuing criminal proceedings. The judgment of Mohd. Shamim v. Smt. Nahid Begum(supra) has subsequently been followed by this Court in 'Nirmal Sachdeva v. State of Haryana, (2008) 27 RCR (Cri) 153', 'Kamal Kishore v. State of Punjab, (2006) 2 RCR (Cri) 342', and 'Naveen v. State of Haryana, 2019 Cri LJ 1004' in CRM-M-17367-2018 decided on 06.12.2018 and Ram Lal v. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 RCR (Cri) 823."

12. Therefore, it is impermissible for the informant to continue with the proceedings after having entered into a compromise and agreeing to withdraw cases filed by her against her husband and his relatives.

13. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 4 of 2020 dated 04.03.2020, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, and 506 of IPC at Women Police Station, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., and the consequent proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioners-accused in pursuance thereto are quashed .

14. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

15. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the webpage of the High Court of of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist on the production of a certified copy, but if required, may verify passing of the order from the Website of the High Court.