The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences in matrimonial disputes if a compromise indicates a remote possibility of conviction, preventing abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of challan/chargesheet emanating from FIR bearing No.40/2020 dated 10.04.2020 for offences under Sections 498-A & 323 IPC registered with Police Station, Kandi, pending disposal before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Koteranka, Rajouri. Quashment of challan/charge-sheet is sought on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the matrimonial dispute.

2. The case set up by the petitioner is that his marriage with respondent No.2 was solemnized on 19.04.2019 in accordance with Hindu rituals. It is contended that due to some personal differences and dispute arising between them, respondent No.2 came out of the matrimonial society of the petitioner and started living separately, whereafter, she lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioner, which, after investigation, resulted in the presentation of a challan before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Koteranka, where it is pending disposal.

3. It appears that, during the pendency of aforesaid challan, good sense prevailed upon the parties and they settled their disputes. Accordingly, they filed a petition for grant of divorce by mutual consent before the Family Court, Jammu. The Family Court, after recording the statements of the parties, wherein they have stated that they have decided to dissolve their marriage, granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner has placed on record a copy judgment and decree dated 08.10.2021.

4. During the pendency of this petition, a compromise deed dated 15.03.2024 was filed by way of an application and taken on record vide order dated 03.04.2024. It is stated in the compromise deed that, on account of dissolution of marriage between the parties, the complainant-respondent No.2 has undertaken not to pursue the impugned FIR.

5. In order to verify the execution of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court vide, order dated 03.04.2024, directed the parties to appear before the Registrar Judicial of this Court for recording their statements. Pursuant to the said direction, the Registrar Judicial has recorded the statements of both the parties and the same are placed on record. In their statements, both the parties have admitted the contents of the compromise deed as well as its execution.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the impugned FIR may be quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. 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 dated 15.03.2024 are concerned, the same are not disputed. However, according to the petitioner, some of the offences are non-compoundable. In the backdrop of this position, 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 are non-compoundable in nature.

9. 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