IMPORTANT POINT
The court can quash non-compoundable offences under Section 498-A IPC if a genuine compromise exists, emphasizing the need to prevent abuse of the legal process.

ORDER :

Arvind Kumar Verma, J.

1. Heard on Admission.

2. Admit.

3. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.

4. Petitioners have filed this petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of Criminal Case No.RCC/3652/2017 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, arising out of FIR No.18/2017 lodged by respondent No.2/complainant (wife of petitioner No.1) on 23.02.2017 at PS- GRP Bhilai, for offence punishable under Section 498-A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

5. Brief facts of this case are that on 25.02.2016 respondent No.2/complainant was married with petitioner No.1 (Shiv Prasad Nayak). After marriage, due to some matrimonial dispute, complainant lodged report against her husband and in-laws (petitioner Nos.2 to 5) in the concerned Police Station. Based upon which, offence under Sections 498-A/34 of IPC was registered against them.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of criminal case, settlement arrived between petitioners and complainant and their statements were also recorded before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court on 10.09.2024. As per settlement between the parties, complainant does not want any further action against the petitioners pursuant to FIR registered on her complaint. Though offence under Section 498(A) of IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision has held that offence of private nature, commercial and matrimonial relationship or family dispute can be permitted to be compounded in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, FIR as well as entire criminal proceeding pending before JMFC, Durg be quashed.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that marriage between petitioner No.1 with complainant/respondent No.2 was solemnized on 25.02.2016 and within short period of time matrimonial dispute arose, but now complainant has amicably settled the dispute with her husband and in-law and do not want to prosecute the criminal case further.

8. Learned State Counsel submits that since the parties have arrived at compromised and respondent No.2 does not want to prosecute the criminal case further, she is having no objection if the matter is closed and the offence is permitted to be compounded.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the application dated 18.07.2023 and statements of the parties recorded before the Additional Registrar (J) of this Court.

10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of BS Joshi & Ors versus State of Haryana & Anr reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, has considered the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial dispute particularly for the offence under Section 498 (A) of IPC and held thus :-

“13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. [(2000) 3 SCC 693] are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts.

14