JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of criminal challan titled “State vs. Masood Ahmad Choudhary and Ors” arising out of FIR No.123/2014 registered against the petitioners at Police Station, Bahu Fort for offences under Sections 307, 498-A and 109 RPC.

2. Briefly put, the case set up by the petitioners is that on 10.06.2012, the petitioner No.1 was married to respondent No.2 as per Muslim rites and customs and out of the said wedlock, one female child, namely, Arisha, was born on 05.08.2013. It is contended that immediately after the marriage, some differences arose between the parties, which resulted in lodging of FIR No.123/2014 against petitioners No.1 and 3 to 6 at Police Station, Bahu Fort, wherein it was alleged that petitioner No.1 has administered dhatura poison to the private respondent. After investigation, the FIR culminated in presentation of the challan before the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. During the investigation and pendency of the challan, respondent No.2 filed applications under Section 12 and 23 of the J&K Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and a petition under Section 488 of Cr. P. C before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Munsiff), Jammu. A suit for dissolution of the marriage was also filed before the Court of Sub-Judge, Jammu.

3. It is further averred that during pendency of the aforementioned challan/proceedings, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, for the betterment of minor child and also in view of their advancing age, settled all their differences by executing a mutual divorce deed dated 22.08.2018, and pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 withdrew applications under Section 12 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act as also the petition under Section 488 of Cr. P. C, that were pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Munsiff), Jammu.

4. The petitioners have contended that since the parties have settled all the issues, therefore, continuance of the proceedings in the criminal challan case arising out of FIR No123/2014 is not in the interest of the complainant i.e. respondent No.2 and the alleged accused i.e. petitioner No.1. It is also averred that so far as the criminal challan is concerned, the same could not be compounded because some of the offences disclosed therein are non-compoundable in nature. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court for seeking quashment of the criminal challan and the proceedings arising there from.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

6. So far as the facts alleged in the petition, particularly those pertaining to the settlement arrived at between the parties in terms of divorce deed (supra), are concerned, the same are not in dispute.

7. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, the question arises as to whether this Court has power to quash the proceedings, particularly when some of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are non-compoundable in nature. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, while considering this aspect, has observed as under:

“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