The power to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power, with due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime, and considering whether continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. K.S. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Soumitra Baroi, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 18.05.2012, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Complaint Case No. 914 of 2011, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the matter is arising out of matrimonial dispute and good sense has prevailed between the parties and both the parties have reached to a compromise and to that effect, I.A. No. 2275 of 2023 has been filed. He submits that it has been agreed that a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- shall be paid at the time of quashing of the complaint to the O.P. No. 2 by petitioner No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 has no objection in disposal of the said complaint case. It has also been disclosed that the status of O.P. No. 2 as wife of the petitioner No. 1 shall be maintained.

4. Mr. Baroi, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that in terms of the disclosure made in I.A. No. 2275 of 2023, the matter has been settled between the parties and the O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed in the matter.

5. In view of the above, Mr. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has handed over a cheque of a sum of rupees six lacs to Mr. Baroi, learned counsel who is appearing for the O.P. No. 2 and he undertakes to hand over the same cheque upon O.P. No. 2.

6. Let a copy of the said cheque be taken on record.

7. In view of the statements made in the aforesaid I.A. and considering that both the parties have come to an amicable settlement and no societal interest is involved in this case, reference may be made to the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein 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 h