The wide plenitude of inherent jurisdiction can be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the court's process, allowing for the quashing of criminal proceedings based on amicable settlements.

Judgment:

Subhash Kakade, J.

1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of Criminal Case No. 1633/2006, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Katni. On the basis of complaint lodged by the respondent No. 2-Smt. Shaili Mishra, a criminal case for the offences punishable under Section 498-A/34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered against the applicant No. 1-Naveen, husband, applicant No. 2-Ram Pratap, applicant No. 3-Smt. Sakuntala and applicant No. 4-Niharika, husband's sister. After conclusion of investigation, the challan has been filed before the learned JMFC, Katni. Vide judgment dated 7-5-2011, learned Trial Court acquitted the accused applicant Nos. 1 to 4 from the charges punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 498-Aof IPC.

2. The applicants preferred appeal against their conviction and punishment. During trial of Criminal Appeal No. 98/2011 before Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Katni, the complainant/respondent No. 2 filed two applications as envisaged under Sections 320(1) and 320(2) of Cr.P.C.. The learned Appellate Court endorsing such application for compounding, however, declined to discharge the applicants from Section 498-A of IPC on the ground that such offence is not compoundable.

3. The question, which now remains to be answered is whether since the offences under Section 498-A/34 of IPC is not compbundable, the proceedings of complaint case could be quashed.

4. It is apparent from the impugned order of the Appellate Court annexed with the petition that the respondent No. 2 has entered into compromise with the applicants voluntarily without any undue influence or coercion so till this extent, no further verification is required.

5. Learned Counsel for the parties submitted at the bar that their clients have amicably resolved their disputes and there is no likelihood of any kind of dispute between them. It is pertinent to mention here that dispute between the parties is of private nature and having no adverse effect on the society as the nature is personal.

6. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 AIR SCW 5333, considered the relevant provisions of the Code and concluded as under:--

"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."

7. Since the parties had buried the hatchet by amicably settling their disputes, this Court could allow the matter to be compounded. In the totality of the circumstances, I am of the view that the settlement arrived at between the parties in form of compromise petitions filed before the learned Appellate Court and as submissions made by their learned Counsel today before this Court is a sensible step that will benefit the parties, give quietus to the controversy and rehabilitate and normalise the relationship between them. In light of compromise between the parties for offences related to matrimonial disputes chances of recording of conviction against the petitioners are remote and bleak and the entire exercise of trial is destined to be exercise of futility. The continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law.

8. It is pertinent to mention here that the relief clause is not complete as the litigation between parties now pending before learned Appellate Court, Katni.

9. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the answer of question giving in affirmative and resultantly this petition unde