The court can quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes when the parties have resolved their dispute, to prevent injustice and abuse of process of law.

JUDGEMENT/ORDER :

1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of FIR No. 21/2020 for offences under Section 392, 498A and 506 IPC registered at Women's Police Station, Rambagh, Srinagar.

2. As per the contents of the impugned FIR, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 has taken place on 5th August, 2019. It is alleged in the FIR that the accused/petitioners inflicted acts of cruelty upon the complainant. She has further alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical torture and ultimately thrown out of her matrimonial home on 23.09.2020. It is also alleged that she was beaten ruthlessly by the petitioners and her jewelry was snatched by the petitioners.

3. The case set up by the petitioner is that the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 got married on 05.08.2019. It is contended that the relation between the two did not remain cordial which resulted in marital discord and ultimate dissolution of the marriage on 19th November, 2020. It is contended in the petition that the respondent No.1 filed a complaint under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 besides lodging the impugned FIR against the petitioners.

4. It seems that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, a compromise was arrived at between the parties. As per this compromise deed, the parties have settled their disputes amicably and have also withdrawn the cases pending between them as they want to live peacefully without involving themselves in further litigation. It is further stated in the compromise deed that the complainant does not want to pursue the impugned FIR. The parties to the dispute i.e., petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 have also made statements before the Registrar Judicial on 09.03.2022, wherein they have admitted the contents of the deed of compromise as well as its execution.

5. Petitioners have contended that so far as the case arising out of FIR No. 21/2020, is concerned, the same could not be compounded because some of the offences disclosed in the impugned FIR are non-compoundable in nature. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court for seeking quashment of the aforesaid FIR.

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

7. So far as the facts alleged in the petition, particularly those pertaining to the compromise arrived at between the parties in terms of compromise deed, are concerned, the same are not disputed.

8. 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. It is a settled law that the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, the High Court will be within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings if it is known that because of the compromise arrived at between the parties, there is remote possibility of securing conviction of the accused and in these circumstances, it would amount to extreme injustice if despite settlement having been arrived at by the parties, the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue. In my aforesaid view, I am fortified by the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh. v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466.

9. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the parties to the matrimonial dispute i.e., petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 (the complainant), have entered into a compromise and that compromise has also been acted upon by the parties, inasmuch as the cases and counter cases lodged by the parties against each other have been withdrawn/compounded. Merely because some of the offences