In cases of compromise between parties and absence of societal interest, criminal proceedings can be quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Fahad Allam, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 3.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with Ranchi (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 300 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No. 6341 of 2011, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi. Orders dated 19.12.2012 and 05.12.2014 are also under challenge.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 herein is the wife of O.P. No. 3. He further submits that there is matrimonial dispute between the parties and petitioner no.1 has filed case under section 498 A I.P.C. which was challenged before this court and considering that compromise has taken place the said case was quashed by this Court. He submits that in the first appeal arising out of divorce case a petition filed on behalf of husband, compromise has taken place between the parties and both parties have agreed that cases filed by them shall be withdrawn by them. He submits that I.A. No. 2041 of 2023 has been filed seeking permission to compromise the case. The said I.A. is supported with separate affidavit of the petitioners as well as O.P. No.3.

4. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 3 accepts the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that both the parties have entered into compromise. He submits that the first appeal is still pending and it has been observed by the Division Bench that if all the cases are withdrawn by the parties, the same shall be considered in the first appeal. In the light of compromise, he submits that the case filed under section 498A I.P.C. has already been quashed and the O.P. No. 3 does not want to proceed further with this case.

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

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 accep