The High Court can quash FIRs in cases of amicable settlements involving predominantly civil disputes, preventing abuse of process.

ORDER :

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner herein while invoking the inherent power of this Court enshrined in section 528 of the BNSS for quashment of FIR bearing No. 0011/2024 dated 09.02.2024 registered with Police Station, Gool as also the consequent charge sheet bearing No. 08/2024 dated 04.04.2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gool for offences under sections 498-A, 504 and506 IPC.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant petition as stated therein are that the petitioner and respondent 2 herein got married on 09.05.2010 according to Muslims rights and rituals and in the said wedlock, three daughters and one son had been born and that on account of certain disputes and differences inter se the petitioner and respondent 2, a complaint came to be lodged by the respondent 2 against the petitioner herein which resulted into registration of aforesaid FIR for offences under sections 498-A, 504 and 506 IPC and consequently culminated into filing of aforesaid charge sheet against the petitioner herein.

3. Upon coming up the petition for consideration today before this Court, the petitioner as well as respondent 2 appeared in person and stated at bar that they have resolved their disputes and differences amicably outside court and as such, seek disposal of the instant petition and consequent quashment of the FIR/charge sheet in view of such amicable settlement.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Before proceeding to settle the instant petition finally on the basis of statements of the parties as also the compromise claimed to have been entered into between them, it would be advantageous and appropriate to refer whereunder to the law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard.

5. The Apex Court in case titled as “Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another” reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303”, has at paragraph 61 held as under:-

“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized 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 victims family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc. cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basical private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, be