IMPORTANT POINT
FIR for offences under Section 498-A, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act was liable to be quashed where both parties moved compounding application stating that dispute stood amicably settled.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Manoj K. Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought quashing of F.I.R. No. 324 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

3. A compounding application, jointly signed by counsel for the complainant (respondent No. 3) and counsel for the petitioner has been filed duly supported by affidavits of petitioner - Kunal Goyal and respondent No. 3 (complainant) - Shipra Goyal.

4. Parties are personally present in Court today who are duly identified by their counsels.

5. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the dispute has been amicably settled through mediation and the parties have decided to burry the hatchet. The settlement deed and mediator’s report are on record.

6. The complainant made a statement that in view of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner; she does not want to pursue the matter any further.

7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and also considering the broad guidelines issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & others Vs State of Punjab & another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, request of the petitioners deserve to be acceded to.

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh (Supra) has held in para 53, 54 and 57, as under:-

“53. Section 482 of the Code, as its very language suggests, saves the inherent power of the High Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words, “nothing in this Code” which means that the provision is an overriding provision. These words leave no manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the Code limits or restricts the inherent power. The guideline for exercise of such power is provided in Section 482 itself i.e. to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As has been repeatedly stated that Section 482 confers no new powers on the High Court; it merely safeguards existing inherent powers possessed by the High Court necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that the power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.

54. In different situations, the inherent power may be exercised in different ways to achieve its ultimate objective. Formation of opinion by the High Court before it exercises inherent power under Section 482 on either of the twin objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or (ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a sine qua non.

57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.”

9. In the case of Narinder Singh (Supra) Hon’b