The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences in matrimonial disputes if the parties have settled amicably, emphasizing the importance of encouraging genuine settlements.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This is an application for quashing of the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by S.D.J.M. Samastipur in Trial No. 3531/2019, arising out of C.R. Case No. 1123/2019 whereby and whereunder the court below was pleased to take cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 498 (A)/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry & Prohibition Act.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that complainant Puja Kumari filed a complaint before the S.D.J.M. Samastipur on 21.06.2019 and it is stated that complainant was married with the petitioner no. 1, Somesh Sharma , under Hindu ritual & custom on 26.11.2017. It is further alleged that petitioners and other started demanding a four wheeler vehicle and due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the complainant was being harassed. It is further alleged that husband transferred 10,000/-rupees in the account of the complainant for abortion but lastly the female child was born on 09.02.2019. It is further alleged that on 15.06.2019, complainant alongwith her father and maternal uncle went to her sasural but the mother and elder brother of the complainant’s husband threatened her and asked them to fix an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs in the name of newly born child then only the complainant will be allowed to enter in the matrimonial house. Subsequently, Sanjiv Kumar and Rani Devi (mother) of the complainant were examined as the witnesses and the cognizance was taken by learned S.D.J.M. Samastipur on 22.10.2019 on basis of S.A. of complainant and witnesses were examined on basis of complainant under Sections 498 (A)/34 of the IPC & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which is the subject matter of the present proceeding.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the present case, both parties are living happily at their working place and leading their conjgual life and have filed joint compromise petition.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not oppose the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners and supports the submission that all the disputes have been settled and the opposite party no. 2 does not want to proceed further in the matter.

6. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has no objection for quashing the cognizance order as the matter has been amicably settled after compromise between the husband and wife.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned APP for the State jointly submit that in the changed circumstances, the continuance of the criminal proceeding would be abuse of the process of the Court. Since the offence under Section 498A IPC is not compoundable, the trial court is helpless to close the proceeding.

8. Perused the records.

9. Though the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same is not compoundable. However, Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, as also in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs.Babita Raghuvanshi, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58, examined the ambit and scope of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in quashing of the criminal proceeding in non-compoundable offences relating to matrimonial dispute.

10. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi (supra) held in paragraphs no. 15 to 17 as under:-

“15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of