MUHAMMAD VENUS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is maintained by the petitioner, under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as "the Code") for quashing of F.I.R No.0005 of 2021, dtd. 8/2/2021, under Ss. 377, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Keylong, Lahaul and Spiti, H.P alongwith all consequent proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R., pending before the learned trial Court.

(2.) Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition, as per the prosecution story, are that on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant, i.e. wife of petitioner to Superintendent of Police, Baddi, District Solan, H.P., case has been registered against the petitioner in police Station Keylong, on receiving the said application/complaint in the Police Station through Superintendent of Police, Baddi on 8/2/2021. Crux of the complaint is that complainant, for surgery, is not able to deliver a child, which has strained relations between the couple resulting into quarrels between them. Whereupon, complainant had also reported the matter to Women Cell, Mandi, where petitioner had assured not to misbehave with the complainant in future and thereafter complainant had accompanied her husband to Lahaul, where for time, some time they lived together harmoniously. But after some time, petitioner started consuming liquor and beating complainant and he had committed sodomy with her for number of times and also compelled her to have oral sex. As petitioner was continuously harassing the complainant, therefore, she had come to her parental house, whereupon, petitioner had extended threats for her life for disclosure of aforesaid incident to anyone. Pursuant thereto, statement of respondent No.2 came to the Police Station for lodging FIR against the petitioner. Now, the parties have entered into a compromise, vide Memorandum of Understanding and undertaking/affidavit (Annexure P-2, P-3 &-4) stating therein that she does not want to pursue the case against the petitioner. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the parties have compromised the matter, no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings against the petitioners and the FIR/Challan, may be quashed and set aside.