JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Ms. Sushma Soni, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite party.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings related to Case Crime No. 0721 of 2020 (State Vs. Rohit Bhati and others) under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

3. On the previous occasion upon submissions of learned counsel for the parties that the matter relates to a matrimonial dispute and that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and have filed a compromise before the court below, the following order was passed.

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Mr Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the private respondent and learned AGA for the State.

It is contended that both the parties have entered into compromise in the court below. A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 stating that she does not want to contest the case against the applicants.

The parties are directed to appear before the court below along with compromise within a week and the court below shall submit report about verification of compromise to this Court by 15.4.2021. List this case on 15.4.2021 showing the name of Mr Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, as counsel for the opposite party no. 2. Until the date fixed no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants pursuant to impugned charge sheet dated 23.09.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 0721 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad pending in the Court of CJM Ghaziabad."

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 26.3.2021, a report has been received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad 16.4.2021 in terms of which the factum of the compromise between the parties has been verified.

5. In B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & others, 2003 (46) ACC 779 (S.C.), it has been held that High Court is empowered to quash criminal proceedings of FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent powers, in case the parties have arrived at settlement agreement of their matrimonial disputes, and Section 320 Cr.P.C does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Similarly in Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I., (2008) 9 SCC 677, compromise was permitted and criminal proceedings were quashed on the basis of the compromise.

7. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 S.C.C. 303, it has been held thus :

“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; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants