The High Court has the jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings in cases of matrimonial disputes where the parties have resolved their entire dispute through a compromise, and there is a remote possibility of securing conviction of the accused.

JUDGMENT

1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of chargesheet titled 'State vs Rajan Gupta and others' bearing No.34/2017 dated 02.08.2017 pending disposal before the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (City Judge), Jammu for the offences under Section 498-A read with Section 109 RPC, filed against petitioner No.2 and others and the consequent criminal proceedings pending before the said Court.

2. The case set up by the petitioners is that marriage between them was solemnized on 07.09.2010 at Jammu in accordance with Hindu rituals and that out of this wedlock, one male child, namely Aayan Gupta born on 04.07.2011 at SMGS Hospital Jammu. It is contended that some personal differences and dispute arose between petitioners No.1 and 2, wife and husband, which ultimately resulted in divorce by mutual consent between them on 07.09.2018. Copy of judgment and decree of divorce passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases), Jammu is annexed with the petition. It is contended in the petition that the petitioners have also agreed that in future, they will not file any civil or criminal litigation against each other with regard to the said matrimony.

3. It seems that during the pendency of these proceedings, a compromise was arrived at between the petitioners whereby they have settled their disputes amicably and that petitioner No.1 does not want to pursue the impugned FIR as they want to live peacefully without involving themselves in further litigation. The petitioners have also made statements before the Registrar Judicial on 01.08.2022, wherein they have admitted the contents of the deed of compromise as well as its execution.

4. It is contended that so far as the case arising out of FIR No.17/2017, which is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (City Judge) Jammu is concerned, the same could not be compounded because the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Court against petitioner No.2 and others is non-compoundable in nature. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court for seeking quashment of the aforesaid Chargesheet and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom.

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

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

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 petitioner No.2 and others 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 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 o