The central legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of family disputes where the wrong is private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if there is a remote possibility of securing conviction of the accused, as the continuation of criminal proceedings in such cases would amount to grave injustice and an abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners have filed the instant criminal revision petition against order dated 04.02.2016 passed by learned 3rd Civil Subordinate Judge, Special Excise Magistrate, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Magistrate), in a criminal challan titled ‘State of J&K vs. Deepak Sethi and others whereby the learned Magistrate has framed charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 498-A and 109 RPC.

2. The case set up by the petitioners is that the marriage between the son of petitioners No.1 and 2, namely Deepak Sethi and respondent No.2 herein was solemnized on 05.11.2007 at Jammu in accordance with Hindu rituals. It is contended that some personal differences and dispute arose between son of petitioners No.1 and 2, the husband and respondent No.2, the wife, which ultimately resulted in registration of FIR No. 15/2014 for offences under Sections 498-A and 109 RPC against the petitioners herein and son of petitioners No.1 and 2, the husband of respondent No.2 After completion of investigation, police presented the challan in the Court of learned Magistrate who, vide his order dated 04.02.2016 framed charges against the petitioners herein except son of petitioners No. 1 and 2, namely Deepak Sethi as he was proceeded under Section 512 Cr.PC due to his abscondence.

3. It seems that during the pendency of these proceedings, a compromise was arrived at between Deepak Sethi, son of petitioners No.1 and 2, the husband and respondent No.2, the wife whereby they have settled their disputes amicably and respondent No.2 has agreed that she does not want to pursue the impugned FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom as the parties want to live peacefully without involving themselves in further litigation. Petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 have also made statements before the Registrar Judicial on 28.08.2023, wherein they have admitted the contents of the deed of compromise as well as its execution.

4. It is contended on behalf of the State that so far as the case arising out of the impugned FIR, which is pending before the trial Court is concerned, the same can not be compounded because the offences for which charges have been framed by the learned Magistrate against the petitioners, are non-compoundable in nature.

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 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 the petitioners and another 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