In matrimonial disputes with a civil flavor, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if a full settlement exists, preventing abuse of process and securing the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) :

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners in connection with Pachamba P.S. Case No.45 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.10237 of 2023 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioner No.1 and the opposite party No.2 and submits that therein it has been mentioned that the parties have already settled the matter by way of mediation by the mediator appointed by the JHALSA, Ranchi and a compromise has been effected to between the parties without any fear, undue influence and/or coercion and they have settled their matter out of their own free will and volition. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the opposite party No.2, further submits that the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law as in view of the compromise, the chances of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the opposite party No.2, next submits that the dispute between the parties is basically a matrimonial dispute and no public policy is involved in this case and the case is predominantly of civil flavour. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that because of some misunderstanding and marital discord, this case was instituted against the petitioners. It is then submitted that in view of the compromise between the parties; the continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners in connection with Pachamba P.S. Case No.45 of 2022 which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no serious objection for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in connection with Pachamba P.S. Case No.45 of 2022 which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.

5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Others vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, had 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