The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of matrimonial disputes and compromises between the parties, the court may quash the criminal proceeding if the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of the case would lead to great oppression and prejudice to the accused, and would be contrary to the interest of justice.

JUDGMENT :

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 14 of 2019 and the order dated 06.07.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in Complaint Case No. 14 of 2019 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 34 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 jointly draw attention of this Court to Interlocutory Application No. 2982 of 2023 which is supported by separate affidavits of the petitioner nos.1 and 3 and opposite party no.2.

4. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that Complaint Case No.14 of 2019 arose out of matrimonial dispute between the parties and drawing attention of this Court to page no.10 of the said Interlocutory Application No. 2982 of 2023 which is a joint compromise arrived at between the parties to the case with intervention of the mediator appointed by JHALSA, it is submitted that the parties have compromised and the petitioner no.3 has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. Drawing attention of this Court to the order dated 23.03.2023 passed in F.A. No.42 of 2022, by a Division Bench of this Court, it is submitted that as mentioned in the said order, the petitioner no.3 has handed over the two drafts in total of Rs.6,00,000/-to the opposite party no.2. It is next submitted that as compromise has been effected to between the parties, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with this criminal proceeding and the same will lead to abuse of process of the court. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding arising out of in Complaint Case No. 14 of 2019 and the order dated 06.07.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in Complaint Case No. 14 of 2019 be quashed.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding, in view of the compromise between the parties.

6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 has the occasion to consider the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia on the basis of compromise between the parties and has held in paragraph no.11 as under :-

“11. Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Gian Singh [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court adverted to the body of precedent on the subject and laid down guiding principles which the High Court should consider in determining as to whether to quash an FIR or complaint in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are : (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61)

“61. … 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.