IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised to quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings based on a settlement between the parties, particularly in cases of familial disputes, provided the nature of the offence does not involve serious societal implications.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

VINAY JOSHI, J. - Heard.

2. Admit.

3. This application poses a question about propriety in invoking inherent powers of this Court in the premise of a settlement, after recording of the evidence of material witnesses.

4. The applicant, a sole accused, is facing a trial arising out of Crime No. 696/2020 for the offences punishable under Ss. 354, 354-A, 452, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'). The applicant (accused) is the elder brother of informant's husband. The informant lodged a report On 12/12/2020 regarding an incident dtd. 10/12/2020. It is the informant's contention that on that day around 02.00 p.m., while she was alone at her house with her minor daughter, the accused arrived, caught hold of her from behind and touched her breast. The informant somehow escaped and raised a protest. The accused left the place after abusing and threatening the informant. The informant telephonically called her father, returned to her parental house and then lodged a report. The Police investigated the matter, and on its completion filed a final report. On denial of guilt by accused, trial commenced. The prosecution examined three witnesses including the informant. Besides the evidence of the informant, evidence of other witnesses are of hearsay nature having no significance. The informant has supported the prosecution in her evidence. At this stage, a compromise was arrived at between the parties resulting in invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the criminal prosecution, namely RCC No. 84/2021 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class.

5. The informant has appeared in person along with her counsel and has filed a written statement. She made a categorical statement that, she along with her family, have resolved the dispute, and she has rejoined the company of her husband. In view of the settlement, she is not willing to continue the criminal prosecution and gave her consent to quash the criminal proceeding. The informant remained present in Court and was accompanied by her husband. She has reaffirmed the settlement, and has expressed unwillingness to continue with the criminal prosecution. In addition, she has stated that she left the matrimonial home due to the incident but since she arrived at a settlement, for last two months she is residing with her husband and her child aged five years. She stated that continuation of the criminal prosecution would have direct impact on her marital life.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the case has its own features, as the dispute was within the family. The accused is the elder brother of informant's husband. The settlement has caused the reunion of the couple. He would submit that the offence cannot be categorised as heinous or anti-social. Continuation of prosecution would be to the detriment of both sides. In these peculiar facts, he urged us to invoke inherent powers of this Court to quash the proceeding.

7. Per contra, the learned APP does not dispute the factum of settlement, however resists the application by contending that since the trial has progressed, it is not in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings midway. He would submit that already the Trial Court has recorded evidence of the informant and two other witnesses. According to him, since the evidence supports the case of the prosecution, it is for the Trial Court to judge the same. He would submit that at the most, in case of conviction, the Trial Court may be made aware of the settlement which shall be considered while passing an appropriate sentence. In substance, the objection revolves around the stage of trial at which the settlement can be accepted. Opposition is on the ground that after commencement of trial and recording of evidence of material witnesses, this Court ought not to exercise its inherent powers.

8. The offence punishable under Sec. 354 of the IPC is of non-compoundable nature. In catena of decisions it has been ruled that irrespec