Compounding of noncompoundable offences can be allowed to maintain peace and harmony between the parties, as per the ruling of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC(Cri) 160.

JUDGMENT

R.C. Khulbe, J. - This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.10.2009, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Roorkee, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 1338 of 2007 whereby the revisionists were convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- under section 498 A IPC; the revisionists have also put a challenge to the judgment and order dated 16.12.2011 passed by 6th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2009, Lokesh & others vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby the learned Appellate Court had affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist no. 2 Naresh has passed away. Accordingly, the revision stands abated against him.

3. The parties have filed a Compounding Application (IA No. 3131 of 2021) jointly to show that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their dispute amicably. It is also stated that the parties have entered into a compromise.

4. Learned counsel for the State although opposed the compounding application but fairly submitted that the case can be compounded with the permission of the Court.

5. Section 498-A IPC is a noncompoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court's in the case of Gyan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2013) 1 SCC(Cri) 160, has permitted compounding of such offences in order to maintain peace and harmony between the parties.

6. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the private respondent through videoconferencing.

7. Parties are present before the Court today and they are duly identified by their respective counsels.

8. Learned counsel for the parties drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC(Cri) 160, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as below:

"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: 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 while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in