The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of matrimonial disputes and offences with a predominantly civil nature, the possibility of conviction being remote and bleak, and the continuation of the criminal case causing oppression and prejudice to the accused, are factors to consider when deciding to quash the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing of the FIR No.219/2018 dated 29.7.2018 of Police Station Ratangarh, Distt. Churu for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 354, 376, 511 and 377 of IPC.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that on the complaint filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, proceedings under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 354, 376, 511 and 377 of IPC are pending. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.2 and the petitioners have compromised the matter and resolved the dispute between them amicably.

3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a compromise dated 29.7.2021 arrived at between the parties before this Court. The same is taken on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since the dispute has already been amicably settled between the parties, the FIR No.219/2018 dated 29.7.2018 of Police Station Ratangarh, Distt. Churu for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 354, 376, 511 and 377 of IPC against the petitioners may kindly be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has conceded that the dispute between the respondent No.2 and the petitioners has already been settled amicably.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

7. It is admitted that the dispute between the parties has already been settled amicably. Today also, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has categorically submitted that the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in the FIR No.219/2018 dated 29.7.2018 of Police Station Ratangarh, Distt. Churu for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 354, 376, 511 and 377 of IPC as the dispute has already been resolved between the parties.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 9 JT 426 SC, has held 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 victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like 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 overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is ba