The court may quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes when the possibility of conviction is remote, and continuation of the case would cause oppression and prejudice to the accused, in line with settled legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Shubham Gautam, 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 16.08.2017 passed in connection with Doranda (Argora) P.S. Case No. 735 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 6938 of 2014, S.T. No. 394/2018, pending in the Court of learned A.J.C.-XV, Ranchi.

3. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the case is arising out of matrimonial dispute and now petitioner no.1-husband and O.P. No. 2-wife have compromised the matter in the Mediation Centre, Ranchi which was conducted pursuant to direction of the court while deciding petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the compromise and other aspect of the matter has been recorded in order dated 14.12.2021 in O.M. No. 212/2015 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Ranchi. He further submits that O.P. No. 2 has received Rs. 15 lakhs in terms of settlement. He further submits that with the mutual consent both the parties have filed a petition under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for mutual divorce.

4. Mr. Shubham Gautam, learned counsel appeared suo motu on behalf of O.P. No. 2 and accepts the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that with the mutual consent divorce has taken place between the parties and decree of divorce has been passed by the learned court below. 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 H