IMPORTANT POINT
Matrimonial disputes can be validly quashed.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.—Through the medium of instant petition, petitioners had sought quashing of proceedings including summoning order passed by the Court of 3rd Additional Munsiff, Ist Class, Jammu in complaint titled Amandeep Kour Vs. Supreet Singh Raina & Ors.

2. On 01.08.2017, petitioner No.5 has moved one miscellaneous application being MP No.01/2017 stating therein that there has taken place a compromise between husband and wife. It is stated that unfortunately, due to some misunderstanding between petitioner No.5 and the respondent, which had resulted in filing of application under Section 488 Cr.P.C. by respondent before Court below. Now the parties have compromised the issue and have reached an understanding wherein the marriage has been saved and parties are living happily as husband and wife for quite some time now and even at present. An order in proceedings under Section 488 Cr.P.C. was also passed by the Court below on 05.06.2017 wherein respondent has withdrawn the said proceedings, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-A. It is further stated that since parties, i.e. petitioner No.5 and the respondent, are living as husband and wife together along with their kid, they have thus compromised everything and are happily residing. It is stated that Divorce Petition filed by respondent has also been compromised and order passed thereon is also annexed as Annexure-B with the application.

3. This Court vide order dated 28.08.2017, directed Registrar Judicial to record the statements of the parties and their counsel. Registrar Judicial has recorded the statements of the parties and that of learned counsel for the petitioners. The same are placed on record.

4. Bare perusal of the statements placed on record, it is evident that parties have entered into a compromise whereby they have settled their differences, residing together and discharging their duties as husband and wife.

5. In case titled Ram Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 11 (2005) DMC 412, it is held as under:

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the above arguments and have gone through the case laws cited at the Bar. It is well settled that while exercising inherent jurisdiction the Court should encourage genuine settlements of the cases arising out of matrimonial disputes. While considering the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in V.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana,, have observed as under:

“There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counter-productive and would act against interest of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code.”

7. The present case also arises out of the matrimonial dispute between the parties. Undisputedly the parties have entered into a written compromise and are living peacefully. However, the question that still emerges for consideration of this Court is whether after conviction having been recorded, the offence can be ordered to be compounded and/or the criminal proceedings pending in the Appellate Court can be ordered to be dropped?

8. In O.P. Dholikia’s case (supra), Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with a case arising out of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, considered the question as to what is the proper stage for compounding the offence. Their Lordships found force with the argument of the Counsel for the s