JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Toshitemjen Pongener, learned counsel for the petitioners, and also heard Mr. V. Zhimomi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Nagaland.

2. This application under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973 has been filed jointly by the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings which is pending before the court of the learned Judicial magistrate First Class in GR Case No. 30/2022, Kohima Women P.S. Case No. 03/2022 under Sections 323/354B/498A IPC, 1860.

3. The facts of the case is that both the petitioners herein are husband and wife. The petitioner no. 2, on 21.03.2022 had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge, Women PS, Kohima, Nagaland against the petitioner no. 1 interalia alleging that the petitioner no. 1 has been physically, sexually, economically and mentally abusing her for years. Accordingly, FIR was registered being Kohima Women PS Case No. 03/2022 under Sections 323/354B/498A IPC. Thereafter, on the basis of the FIR, the petitioner no. 1 was arrested on the same day.

4. After completion of the investigation the Investigating Officer filed a Charge sheet, bearing Charge sheet No. WPS C/No. 0042/2022 dated 18.04.2022 under Sections 323/354B/498 IPC and the cognizance was accordingly taken on 29.06.2022 by the learned JMFC, Kohima, Nagaland. The petitioner no. 1 was enlarged on bail by the JMFC on 25.04.2022.

5. On 18.04.2022 the petitioner no. 2 made a declaration by affidavit that on 18.03.2022 she has lodged an FIR before the Kohima Women PS against the petitioner no. 1, who is her husband and they have 9 children and were living happily as husband and wife; however, during past few days there arose some misunderstanding between them and out of enrage she alleged him on multiple allegations at the time of registering the FIR. She further declared that she had made the allegation against the petitioner no. 1 out of anger and frustration, however she would withdraw the case as she had forgiven in good gesture as they would continue to live together as spouse in the future days.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the petitioner no. 1 was released on bail, both the petitioners are living peacefully helping each other in all situations and will continue to live in harmony wherein both have forgiven and forgotten to each other and accordingly a Compromise Deed dated 30.09.2022 was executed between them as the parties have been living happily. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have approached the learned JMFC for discharge, which was heard on 09.11.2022. The learned JMFC has rejected the discharge petition while dropping the charge under Section 323 IPC on the ground that since the offence is compoundable and the parties have executed the deed of Compromise, held that since Section 354B and 429A of IPC are not envisaged for compounding under the tables provided under Section 320 of CrPC, same cannot be compounded and the Compromise deed could be taken into consideration as mitigating factor during the hearing on quantum of punishment in the event the case ends in conviction.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the case of Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr., reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 submits that the offences which are not compoundable cannot be compounded by the Court as the Courts has the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the CrPC. However, in the given case, the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC having regard to the fact that parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection even though the offences are non-compoundable. Therefore, since both the petitioners have executed a Compromise deed being husband and wife having 9 children out of their wedlock and are happily living together, prays for quashing and setting aside of the criminal proceedings, being GR Case No. 30/2022