JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. K. L. Nayam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. The petitioners, who are the husband and wife, have jointly instituted the present proceedings praying for quashing of the FIR, dated 09.07.2021, lodged by the petitioner no. 1 (wife) against the petitioner no. 2 (husband), leading to registration of Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 87/2021, under Section 498(A) of the IPC and the corresponding G.R. Case No. 614/2021, presently pending in the files of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, at Yupia.

3. The petitioner no. 1 herein, had lodged an First Information Report (FIR) on 09.07.2021 against the petitioner no. 2 alleging therein that the petitioner no. 2 had forcefully kidnapped her minor daughter while the petitioner no. 1 was proceeding to get her admitted at Gellam Memorial School located at SRPL Colony at Chandranagar, Itanagar, on 08.07.2021. The petitioner no. 1 further alleged in the said FIR that the petitioner no. 2 under influence of alcohol used to assault her. The police on receipt of the said FIR proceeded to register Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 87/2021, under Section 498(A) of the IPC. It is contended that the police on conclusion of the investigation in the matter, proceeded to file Charge-sheet, being Charge-sheet No. 104/2021, dated 20.07.2021 in G.R. Case No. 614/2021, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, at Yupia.

4. The case is now pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia for trial and disposal.

5. It is contended by the petitioners herein that after lodging of the said FIR, they have amicably resolved the issue between them on 15.05.2024 and in this connection, had also executed a Deed of Settlement on 15.05.2024 itself.

6. In terms of the said Deed of Settlement dated 15.05.2024, executed between the petitioners herein, it is projected that they had formally settled the matter and the petitioner no. 1 herein has no resentment against the petitioner no. 2. The petitioners have also filed an additional affidavit, wherein, they have jointly stated that after the amicable settlement as arrived at in the matter between them they are now living a peaceful life as husband and wife along with their 2(two) children.

7. The Sections involved being not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners have jointly instituted the present proceedings praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding now pending against the petitioner no. 2.

8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the parties and also considered the materials available on record.

9. The issue arising in the present proceedings is as to whether this Court has the power, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences in view of the compromise arrived at between parties. The said issue, more particularly, with regard to matrimonial dispute/offences was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi V. State of Haryana & Another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or could there be lying a rigid formula to be followed by the Courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It was further held that it is well settled that these powers have no limit, of course, where there is more power; it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care and caution while exercising such powers. Having held so, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed and concluded as follows:-

“12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of