The court has the power to quash criminal proceedings in cases involving compromise between the parties, considering the nature and gravity of the crime, societal impact, and the fairness of continuing with the criminal proceeding.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 02.04.2016 passed in connection with C.P. Case No. 2511 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad.

3. Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that husband has filed case against her wife and her family members. He further submits that there is matrimonial dispute. He further submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties for that a compromise petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner as well as O.P. No. 2 by way of I.A. No. 3668 of 2020 seeking permission to compromise the case. He submits that petitioner no. 4-wife and O.P. No. 2-husband are living together peacefully.

4.Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 accepts the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that compromise has reached between the parties. He submits that the now petitioner no. 4 is being kept by O.P. No. 2 with full honour and dignity. He submits that O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed further in the matter.

5.Learned counsel for the State submits that as the case has been compromised between the parties, the entire criminal proceeding can be quashed.

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 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 acquitting the accus