The High Court can quash non-compoundable matrimonial offense proceedings if the parties have amicably settled their disputes, emphasizing the use of inherent powers to secure justice.

JUDGMENT :

(ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, J.)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, 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 14.10.2019 passed by learned S.D.J.M. Khagaria in Complaint Case No. 740C/2016 whereby and whereunder the petitioners being father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant have been directed to be summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 4 98 (A) of the IPC and3/4 of the D.P. Act.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the marriage of Complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 was solemnized with the son of the petitioners on 13.06.2012. It is alleged that Rs. 10,000,00/- was being demanded for vehicle and Complainant/Opposite Party no. 2 was subjected to cruelty. In the meanwhile, she became pregnant of two months and when she stated medical check up by doctor it is alleged that husband of the complainant/son of the petitioners gave her some medicine as a result of which her pregnancy got terminated. It is further alleged that it was told to complainant that her uterus has developed some infection and it requires operation. She was operated in Delhi but later on she was informed by the accused persons that her uterus has been removed and they will not keep her until she brings the amount. It is further alleged that petitioners and others demanded dowry, assaulted, threatened and ousted her from matrimonial home.

4. Learned counsel submits that initially cognizance has been taken against the son of the petitioners on 01.09.2018. Against the order of 01.09.2018, the complainant has filed revision and Revisional Court has passed the order by remanding the matter back to the concerned court for passing the order afresh. Thereafter concerned court, on same set of allegation and material available on record, has taken cognizance against the petitioners and other on 14.10.2019. He further submits that both party have submitted joint affidavit and it has been stated in the joint affidavit that dispute has been amicably settled between parties and they have no grievances. In 13 (B) petition, in para 5, it is mentioned that as per negotiation, husband of the complainant/ son of the petitioners became ready to pay Rs. 35,000,00/- as full and final settlement to petitioner no.2 (Complainant) for lifetime and permanent alimony has been accepted by petitioner no. 2 (Complainant).

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 an abuse of the process of the Court. They submits that the offence under Section 498A IPC is not compoundable, the trial court is helpless in closing the proceeding.

8. Perused the records.

9. So far as the offence under Section 4 98A 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 Ragh