The High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, including those involving non-compoundable offenses, in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of process. This power can be exercised in cases involving matrimonial disputes where the parties have reached a compromise and the possibility of conviction is remote.

1. - The present miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 269/2011 arising out of FIR No. 10/2011, registered at Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur pending against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, Distt. Jodhpur instituted at the instance of the respondent No. 2 Smt.Neetu @ Nandita for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC.

2. The First Information Report in this case was filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner. On the basis of the said FIR, the charge-sheet was filed and the trial is going on against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, Distt. Jodhpur. During pendency of the trial, compromise has been arrived at between the parties as regards the criminal case and accordingly an application was filed on behalf of the complainant (respondent No. 2) and the petitioner before the trial court for terminating the proceedings on the basis of the compromise. The trial Court vide order dated 21.1.2013 allowed the parties to compound the offences under Sections 406 and 323 IPC, however, rejected the said application so far it relates to compounding of the offence under Section 498-A IPC; hence the present miscellaneous petition has been preferred for quashing of the proceedings against the accused-petitioner.

3. Shri D.N. Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Jagat Tatia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent No. 2 have submitted that the dispute arose between the husband and wife owing to matrimonial rifts and thus the complainant-respondent No. 2 was led to file the first information report against the petitioner. Thereafter, wiser counsel have prevailed and the parties to the litigation have decided to settle all their disputes by way of a compromise and accordingly the compromise petition was filed in the trial court, which has been rejected by the impugned order.

4. Seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings going on against the accused petitioner, the present miscellaneous petition has been submitted. Learned counsel appearing before this Court have submitted that once the matrimonial disputes have been settled and the parties have arrived at a compromise then continuance of the criminal proceedings is likely to unsettle the compromise arrived at between the parties. It has further been submitted that the ends of justice also require that if the matrimonial disputes are settled mutually by the spouses then the criminal litigation should not be continued.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered the scope of inherent powers of the High Court for quashing the proceedings of cases involving non-compoundable offences while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SC 426 observed as below:-

"57. 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 F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and 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 vict