IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision was influenced by the principles that the High Court should be guided by in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, particularly in cases involving matrimonial disputes and the nature of the offences.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. Both these criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 21.10.2020 in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No.60 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No.2929 of 2020 whereby and where under, cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Drawing attention of this Court to the mediation report submitted by the Mediator appointed by Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, it is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the parties have entered into compromise and the informant-opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the case.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Cr. M.P. No. 497 of 2022 has been filed by the accused-Pravin Kumar @ Praveen Kumar who is the husband of the opposite party no.2 and Cr. M.P. No.304 of 2022 has been filed by the accused-Anjani Kumar Singh @ Anjani Kumar and Usha Sinha @ Usha Devi who are respectively the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the informant-opposite party no.2.

5. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that since compromise has been effected to between the parties; hence continuance of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of the court. It is then jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 21.10.2020 in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No.60 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No.2929 of 2020 be quashed.

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 Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, summed up and laid down the principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings by observing thus in paragraph-29. which reads as under:-

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not pr