The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering societal interest, timing of settlement, and nature of the offense in deciding whether to quash criminal proceedings based on a settlement between the parties.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, learned counsel for the State and Mrs. Chailtali C. Sinha, 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 04.03.2017 passed in connection with C/1-1299/2016, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur.

3. Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the present case is arising out of matrimonial dispute lodged under section 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act along with other sections of I.P.C. He submits that O.P. No. 2 is the wife of petitioner no. 1. He submits that this Court by order dated 13.09.2022 referred the matter before the Member Secretary, JHALSA and pursuant to that the dispute has been settled between the parties and mediation report is on record.

4. Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 accepts the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that O.P. No. 2 has received Rs. 30 lakhs paid by the petitioner and they have decided to dissolve their marriage and in this regard divorce petition has already been filed. She submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties for that a joint compromise petition has been filed on behalf of petitioners as well as O.P. No. 2 by way of I.A. No. 11740 of 2022 seeking permission to compromise the case. The said I.A. is supported with separate affidavit of the petitioners as well as O.P. No.2. She submits that O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed further in this case.

5. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that this is a case of matrimonial dispute and as the matter has been compromised, the Court may pass appropriate order.

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 pen