The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to quash criminal proceedings in cases of compromise between the parties in matrimonial disputes where no societal interest is involved, as emphasized in the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Vikah Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Lalit Yadav, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 1336 of 2019 arising out of Bank More P.S. Case No. 348 of 2018 including order dated 21.11.2019 whereby the learned court found a prima facie case under section 498A/313 of the I.P.C. and under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad.

3. Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that case is arising out of matrimonial dispute. He further submits that petitioner no.1-husband and O.P. No. 2-wife have compromised the case and with the mutual consent a petition for divorce has been filed under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act which was numbered as Original Suit No. 325/2021 in which divorce has been granted. He further submits that terms and conditions have been disclosed in the said suit and both the parties agreed to withdraw the criminal cases filed by them.

4. Mr. Lalait Yadav, learned counsel appeared suo motu on behalf of O.P. No. 2 and accepts the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that compromise has taken place between the parties. He submits that in view of compromise, appropriate order may kindly be passed.

5. 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 before the High Court against the conviction recorded by the trial court. Obviously, such cases are those where the accused persons have been found guilty by the trial court, which means the serious charge of Section 307 IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt at the level of the trial court. There would not be any question of accepting compromise and acquittin