In cases of matrimonial disputes with a compromise between the parties and no societal interest, the criminal proceedings can be quashed based on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Deepankar Roy, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Swapan Maji, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with Giddi P.S. Case No. 70 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 3062 of 2004. Further prayer has been made for quashing of orders dated 09.11.2009, 02.06.2010 and 24.07.2013. Prayer has also been made to quash orders dated 12.11.2013 and 26.06.2014 whereby processes under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been issued against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter is arising out of matrimonial dispute. He submits that the O.P. No. 2 is wife of petitioner no. 1. He submits that the matter was sent to the JHALSA for mediation wherein the dispute has been settled. Mediation report is annexed as Annedure-4 to the main petition. He submits that on that basis a compromise petition has also been filed before the learned court. He submits that I.A. No. 574 of 2016 has been filed seeking permission to compromise the case. The said I.A. is supported with affidavit of the O.P. No. 2.

4. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 accepts the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that compromise has taken place and in view of compromise O.P. no. 2 is residing with the petitioner no. 1 He submits that in view of compromise, the entire criminal proceeding may be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that since there is compromise, appropriate order may be passed.

6. In the case of Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (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