The High Court may quash criminal proceedings in private disputes, particularly matrimonial ones, if a full settlement is reached and continuation would cause injustice.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. being Latehar (Mahila) P.S. Case No.15 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Latehar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.5525 of 2025 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioner, his Pairvikar and the opposite party No.2/informant and submit that therein it has categorically been mentioned that the petitioner and the opposite party No.2/informant have entered into a joint compromise on the intervention of well-wishers and close relatives, hence in view of the compromise between the parties, the opposite party No.2/informant does not want to proceed with the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner hands over the demand draft of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn in favour of the opposite party No.2/informant through her counsel appearing in the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the parties have agreed to dissolve their marriage by filing an application under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act and the opposite party No.2/informant does not have any grievance against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, 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 petitioner is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. of Latehar (Mahila) P.S. Case No.15 of 2022 which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Latehar, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner.

4. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. of Latehar (Mahila) P.S. Case No.15 of 2022 which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Latehar.

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