The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to quash criminal proceedings in cases of compromise between the parties, especially in matrimonial disputes, where the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of the criminal case would cause oppression and prejudice to the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. Chandana Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned counsel for the State and Ms. Ruby Yadav, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of cognizance order dated 12.12.2018 including the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 399 of 2018, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Saraikella.

3. Ms. Chandana Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case is arising out of matrimonial dispute and both parties have compromised the case by filing joint petition under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for mutual divorce which has been brought on record by way of I.A. No. 4740 of 2022 filed for seeking permission to compromise the case.

4. Ms. Ruby Yadav, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that matter has been compromised between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed further with this case. She further submits that both the parties have decided to obtain divorce by way of mutual consent under section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act.

5. Learned counsels for the petitioner as well as O.P. No. 2 jointly submit that a joint petition has been filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna numbered as Matrimonial Case No. 1193 of 2018 which has been annexed with the joint compromise petition.

6. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that as the matter has been compromised, the Court may pass appropriate order.

7. In paragraph 9 of the Matrimonial Case No. 1193 of 2018 it has been stated that both the parties have agreed to withdraw or compromise all the cases pending in the different courts in Bihar and Jharkhand within fortnight from filing of that petition. In the said para the present Cr.M.P. No. 1126 of 2019 has also been mentioned.

8. 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 w