The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be sparingly exercised, especially in cases involving heinous and serious offences, and the possibility of conviction being remote and bleak is a key factor in exercising the power to quash criminal proceedings based on settlement.

A.S. Oka, J.

Heard learned counsel for the Applicant. The Applicant is the wife and second Respondent is the husband.

2. The Applicant-wife has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC') by judgment and order dated 2nd June 2012 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. The victim of the offence is the second Respondent who had set criminal law in motion. The Applicant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. An appeal preferred by the Applicant being Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2012 against the orders of conviction is pending before the Sessions Court at Kolhapur.

3. What is pointed out in this petition is that pending the appeal in a petition for divorce filed by the second Respondent, the Applicant-wife and second Respondent-husband have amicably resolved their matrimonial dispute and have agreed to apply for divorce by mutual consent. The petition is pending in the Family Court at Kolhapur.

4. The submission of learned counsel for Applicant is that criminal proceedings were initiated as a result of on-going matrimonial dispute between the Applicant and the second Respondent. He submitted that as there is a complete settlement between the parties to the marriage, this is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code') to quash the criminal proceedings. He submitted that the Apex Court has repeatedly held, especially in the case of offences arising out of matrimonial disputes, that an endeavour shall be made by the Courts to ensure that the settlement in the matrimonial disputes is given full effect, if necessary, by quashing the pending criminal proceedings. His submission is that the Apex Court has repeatedly held that in case of criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes, on settlement of all the disputes, the proceedings can always be quashed by exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code. He invited our attention to the observations made by the Apex Court in case of Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466. He, therefore, urged that this is a fit case where this Court can exercise extraordinary power conferred on it under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the proceedings, though there is already conviction of the Applicant, especially when the Applicant and second Respondent have agreed to resolve all the subsisting disputes between them. He urged that if criminal proceedings are not quashed, the settlement which is filed on the record of the Family Court will be frustrated.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant relied upon observations made by the Apex Court in paragraphs 29.2 and 29.4 in Narinder Singh's case (supra). He also pointed out the observations made in paragraph 32 of the said decision. He submitted that if circumstances are extraordinary, this Court is not powerless to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. He submitted that in the facts of this case, the situation is extraordinary, which calls for intervention by this Court by exercising power under Section 482 of the Code. He submitted that if power is exercised by this Court, the compromise between the Applicant and second Respondent will be implemented so that both of them can start living a new life.

6. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. As far as the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code is concerned, it is well settled that it is a discretionary power. The power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The remedy under Section 482 of the Code is not available as a matter of right.

7. In the present case, the exercise of the said power is sought on the basis of private settlement between the Applicant and second Respondent. The legal position as regards the exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code on the basis of settle