ORDER

1. This petition has been filed for invoking inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings of RCT No.10412/2014 arising out of Crime No.423/2013 registered at P.S. Panagar District Jabalpur for commission of offence punishable under sections 498-A/34 of IPC and section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners.

2. On the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, the parties have filed application for compromise under sections 320(1) and 320(2) of Cr.P.C.

3. The brief facts of the case are that marriage of respondent No.2 Smt. Seema Patel was solemnized with petitioner No.1 Naresh Patel on 2.6.2010.

4. The respondent No.2 lodged an FIR against the petitioners for the offence punishable under sections 498-A read with section 34 of IPC and under section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation charge sheet has been filed. Both the parties filed an application for seeking compromise before the Court below. On 29.3.2022, learned Court below rejected the application on the ground that aforesaid offences are non compoundable.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the instant petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, parties amicably settled their differences by way of mutual settlement. Pursuant to the same on 16.11.2022, parties were directed to appear before the Registrar (J-II) for verifying the genuineness and correctness of the compromise.

6. On 18.11.2022 parties appeared before the Registrar (J-II) who recorded the statement of petitioners as well as respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 stated that she has entered into compromise without any threat, inducement or pressure with the applicants. Registrar (J-II) in his report has mentioned that compromise appears to be genuine and authentic. She has been duly identified by her counsel. Petitioners and respondent No.2 appeared in person before this Court and have prayed that criminal proceedings in RCT No.10412/2014 pending before JMFC, Jabalpur, arising out of Crime No.423/2013 registered at Police Station Panagar, District Jabalpur, be quashed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the parties placing reliance on the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuwanshi and another passed in Criminal Appeal No.447/2013 vide judgment dated 15.3.2013 by the Supreme Court, Jagdish Channa and others v. State of Haryana and another – AIR 2008 SC 1968, Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab – AIR 2008 SC 1969, Shiji v. Radhika and another – (2011) 10 SCC 705, Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab- (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and others reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 have submitted that criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes can be quashed by the Court, if the Court is satisfied that the matter has been settled between the parties amicably.

8. It is not in dispute that on the case in hand, subsequent to filing of criminal case under section 498-A, 34 of IPC and sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, parties concerned have amicably settled their differences and executed a compromise/settlement and pursuant thereto, filed the said compromise before this Court with a request to take the same on record and to drop the criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.2/wife in her statement before the Registrar (J-II) has stated that she has entered into the compromise and did not wish to pursue criminal proceedings against the petitioners and fully supported the contents of the compromise application.

9. In the case of Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

9. “Learned counsel for the parties, by drawing our attention to the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, submitted that in an identical circumstance, this Court held that the High Court in exercise