The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law, considering the settlement between the parties.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought quashing of F.I.R. dated 29.10.2018, being Case Crime No. 01 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Revenue Police, Area Sadar, Tehsil Ranikhet.

3. A compounding application, jointly signed by counsel for the complainant (respondent No. 2) and counsel for the petitioner has been filed duly supported by affidavits of petitioner and respondent No. 2 (complainant).

4. Petitioner and respondent no. 2 (complainant), are present in the Court today who are duly identified by their counsels.

5. Learned counsels for the parties submit that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and the parties have decided to burry the hatchet.

6. The complainant made a statement that, in view of the compromise arrived at between her and petitioner; she does not want to pursue the matter any further. As per compromise, petitioner will pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month towards education of his son, who will live with his mother.

7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and also considering the broad guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, request of the petitioners deserve to be acceded to.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh (Supra) has held in para 53, 54 and 57, as under:-

"53. Section 482 of the Code, as its very language suggests, saves the inherent power of the High Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words, "nothing in this Code" which means that the provision is an overriding provision. These words leave no manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the Code limits or restricts the inherent power. The guideline for exercise of such power is provided in Section 482 itself i.e. to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As has been repeatedly stated that Section 482 confers no new powers on the High Court; it merely safeguards existing inherent powers possessed by the High Court necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that the power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.

54. In different situations, the inherent power may be exercised in different ways to achieve its ultimate objective. Formation of opinion by the High Court before it exercises inherent power under Section 482 on either of the twin objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any court or (ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a sine qua non.

57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of in