The High Court has the power to quash criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, particularly in cases where the dispute is matrimonial in nature and private in nature, and where the parties have resolved their entire dispute by way of a compromise/settlement.

JUDGMENT

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. - The revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of Dinhata Women Police Station Case No. 99/2019 dated the 24th December, 2019 (State vs. Prasenjit Das & Ors.) under Section 498A/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Dinhata, Cooch Behar.

2. The petitioner's case is that he is the husband of the opposite party no. 2/complainant. The other petitioners are his relatives. The complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2 is to the effect that their marriage took place six years prior to filing of the case. That she was tortured for dowry and then was driven out from her matrimonial home. Case diary has been produced by the learned Counsel for the State. CRAN 1 of 2022 has been filed jointly on affidavit by the parties in this case stating that the dispute between them has been compromised by way of settlement. A copy of the joint petition of compromise has been annexed to the CRAN application. The parties have prayed for quashing of the case under revision.

3. Learned Counsels for both sides have submitted that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties and on the basis of the said settlement the joint applicants have submitted that the present revisional application be allowed by setting aside of the judgment and order under revision.

4. The opposite party no. 1/wife has submitted an affidavit that the matter has been amicably settled and she has no objections if this revision is allowed by setting aside the judgment under revision.

5. Considered the said stand of the parties and materials on record and the joint compromise arrived at between the parties and submitted by way of a joint application being CRAN 1 of 2022 on affidavit before this Court and also considered the submissions of the learned lawyers for both sides.

6. The following rulings are relied upon by this Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case herein:-

(1) (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 303.

(2) (2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 290.

7. The Three Judge Bench of the Court in (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 303, Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another has cleared the position in respect of the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction in para 61 of the judgment, which is reproduced here in:-

'The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmin