The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of compromise in matrimonial disputes, where no societal interest is involved, the court may quash the criminal proceeding, considering the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and judgments.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Yogesh Modi learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Abhinay 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 17.01.2022 in connection with Mahila Thana 31/21, corresponding to G.R. No. 194/2022 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi.

3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case is arising out of matrimonial dispute. He further submits that pursuant to order passed in A.B.P. No. 1889/2021 mediation was held between the parties and in the mediation both the parties have compromised the case on certain terms and conditions. He further submits that in terms of compromise both the parties decided to obtain divorce from each other with mutual consent and one time alimony was also fixed which the petitioner will pay to O.P. No. 2 and the manner of such payment was also mentioned in para 2 and 3 of mediation report wherein it has been admitted that total amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- was required to be paid to the O.P. No. 2. He submits that Rs. 4,00,000/- has already been paid to the O.P. No. 2 by the petitioner and today he has brought a bank draft of Rs. 1,50,000/-.

4. Mr. Abhinay Kumar, learned counsel appeared suo motu on behalf of O.P. No. 2. He accepts the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The said bank draft of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been handed over to Mr. Abhinay Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 who will hand over the said draft to the O.P. No. 2. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 admits that earlier O.P. No. 2 has received Rs. 4 lakhs.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that remaining amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- will be given to the O.P. No. 2 on the date of order of mutual divorce.

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

7. 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 woul