The central legal point established in the judgment is the wide plenitude of the High Court's inherent power to quash criminal proceedings in cases of settlement, especially in offenses with a predominantly civil nature, as outlined in the judgments of Gian Singh and Rajendra Bhagat.

JUDGMENT :

O.P No. 2 is wife of the petitioner. Prakash Thakur is her father-in-law who died during pendency of this case and vide order dated 10th June 2022 present criminal revision petition qua Prakash Thakur was dismissed as not pressed.

2. On the basis of a First Information Report lodged by her on 18th July 2011 making an allegation against the accused persons of demanding Rs.50,000/-and a motorcycle, the investigation in the case was conducted. The accused persons faced the trial on the charge under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove the aforesaid charges against the accused persons, who also tendered defence evidence by producing three witnesses. By judgment dated 7th August 2013 in T.R No. 259 of 2013 arising out of G.R No. 2256 of 2011 corresponding to Dhanbad PS Case No. 562 of 2011, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code with a default stipulation to undergo SI for 6 months.

3. The Judgment in T.R No. 259 of 2013 came to be challenged by the petitioner and his father (since dead) in Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2013 which was dismissed by a judgment delivered on 16th December 2014.

4. This criminal revision petition challenging the aforesaid judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2013 was admitted for hearing by this Court on 25th February 2015.

5. On that day, the petitioner was directed to be enlarged on bail by furnishing bail-bond of Rs.10,000/-with two sureties of the like amount.

6. Thereafter this criminal revision petition was listed on 2nd May 2022 when the following order was passed by this Court:

“No one appears for the petitioners on second call. The State is represented through Mr. Saket Kumar, the learned APP.

The petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to R.I for 3 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-each under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

By an order dated 25th February 2015 the petitioners were directed to be enlarged on bail.

In the aforesaid circumstances, reserving a liberty with the petitioners for engaging a counsel of their choice, Mr. Randhir Kumar, the learned counsel is appointed as Amicus in this matter.

Registry shall provide complete set of paper-book alongwith all the necessary documents to the learned Amicus within one week.

Post the matter on 13th May 2022 under the heading for “Orders”.”

7. On the next date of hearing, the learned counsels appearing for the parties apprised the Court that there has been an amicable settlement between the parties – father of the petitioner had died in the meantime.

8. In support of the aforesaid statements made by the learned counsels for the parties, a joint compromise petition dated 9th May 2022 has been placed on record. This joint compromise petition has been signed by petitioner and O.P No.2 and they have filed their separate affidavits in support of the joint compromise petition.

9. Mr. Randhir Kumar, the learned Amicus refers to the judgment in “Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.” (2012) 10 SCC 303 to submit that powers under section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is different and distinct from powers of the Court to quash a complaint or even conviction recorded for an offence which is not compoundable.

10. The learned Amicus referred to paragraph no. 61 in “Gian Singh” wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the