The court can quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes based on the settlement between the parties and the absence of societal interest, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and Ms. Sonal Jaiswal, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 05.05.2018 in connection with Nirsa P.S. Case No. 203 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 3388 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad.

3. Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites thereafter some dispute arose between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 which resulted in filing the case under section 498A I.P.C and under section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. He further submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties for that a joint compromise petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner as well as O.P. No. 2 by way of I.A. No. 4139 of 2022 seeking permission to compromise the case. The settlement dated 07.05.2022 has been annexed as Annexure-A to the interlocutory application.

4. Ms. Sonal Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that matter has been compromised between the parties. She submits that as per full and final settlement out of Rs. 23 lakhs, the O.P. No. 2 has received Rs. 11 lakhs and rest amount of Rs. 12 lakhs shall be released in favour of O.P. No. 2 in terms of settlement. She submits that the O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed further with this case. This case arises out of matrimonial dispute. She submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that this is a case of matrimonial dispute and as the matter has been compromised, the Court may pass appropriate order.

6. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in those cases which are not compoundable and there is no chance of conviction and also there is no societal interest, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, the power is to be exercised. In Paragraphs-27 and 28, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

“27. At this juncture, we would like also to add that the timing of settlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation. Of course, it would be after looking into the attendant circumstances as narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when challan is submitted but the charge has not been framed, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned above, since the report of the I.O. under Section 173, Cr.P.C. is also placed before the Court it would become the bounding duty of the Court to go into the said report and the evidence collected, particularly the medical evidence relating to injury etc. sustained by the victim. This aspect, however, would be examined along with another important consideration, namely, in view of settlement between the parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and whether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. If the Court finds the answer to this question in affirmative, then also such a case would be a fit case for the High Court to give its stamp of approval to the compromise arrived at between the parties, inasmuch as in such cases no useful purpose would be served in carrying out the criminal proceedings which in all likelihood would end in acquittal, in any case.

28. We have found that in certain cases, the High Courts have accepted the compromise between the parties when the matter in appeal was pending befor