JUDGMENT :

VIJAY BISHNOI, J.

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Regular Case No. 2688/2020, State of Rajasthan vs. Harshit Kothari (arising out of FIR No. 20/2020 of Police Station, Mahila Thana, District Udaipur), whereby the trial court vide order dated 19.8.2021 has attested the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC as the same is not compoundable.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2, the Police Station Mahila Thana, Udaipur has registered an FIR No. 20/2020 against the petitioner. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner for offence under Sections 406 and 498A I.P.C. in the trial court wherein the trial is pending against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. During the pendency of the trial, a joint application was preferred on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 while stating that both the parties have entered into compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner may be terminated. The learned trial court vide order dated 19.8.2021 allowed the parties to compound the offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. however, rejected the application so far as it relates to compounding the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C.

3. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the said proceedings against him.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the complainant-respondent No. 2 and the petitioner have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioner has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and the respondent No. 2 does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, JT 2012 (9) SC 426 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 imp