The court has the power to quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes where the parties are willing to settle amicably, in line with the duty to encourage genuine settlements of such disputes.

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal revision u/s 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.09.2016 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Additional Judge, Narsinghpur in Criminal Appeal No.90/2014 (arising out of judgment dated 28.05.2014 passed in Criminal Case No.2222/2010) whereby the applicants have been convicted for offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02-02 years each, Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 06-06 months each and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02-02 years each with fine of Rs.500/--Rs.500/- each respectively, with default stipulations.

2. As per prosecution case the complainant-Smt. Asha Bai was married to applicant No.3 on 09.05.1998, till 4-5 years of her marriage, she lived happily at the house of the applicants, thereafter one daughter was born after three years, due to which, applicants started harassing the complainant and also demanded dowry and a four wheeler. Due to harassment, the complainant came to her parental house where she lived for more than 5 years. Thereafter, compromise taken place between them and she went back to her matrimonial house. On 26.03.2010 appellant No.3 assaulted the complainant. She informed about the incident to her father on telephone and went to her parental house. Thereafter, on 26.03.2010, a complaint was lodged against the applicants for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323 of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The trial Court vide judgment dated 17.09.2016 convicted the applicants for offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02-02 years each, Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 06-06 months each and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02-02 years each with fine of Rs.500/--Rs.500/- each respectively, with default stipulations.

4. Being aggrieved with judgment of conviction and order of sentence o f the trial Court. The applicants preferred a Criminal Appeal bearing No.90/2014 before the lower appellate Court. By the impugned judgment the lower appellate convicted and sentenced the applicants as stated hereinabove. Hence, applicants filed instant revision against impugned judgment dated 17.09.2016.

5. This Court on 23.09.2016 while admitting the revision suspended the jail sentence of the applicants. However, during pendency of instant revision the parties have entered into compromise and accordingly, filed interlocutory applications being I.A.No.15982/2022 under Section 320(1) of Cr.P.C. and I.A.No.15984/2022 under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. stating that the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of Court and now they have no dispute amongst themselves and they have developed cordial relations. The applications have been duly supported by affidavits of both the parties. Vide order dated 01.09.2022 the parties were directed to appear before the Registrar (Judicial-II) for verification of their compromise on 15.09.2022.

6. On 15.09.2022, the parties have appeared before the Registrar (Judicial-II) who submitted his report stating that accused persons and complainant have personally appeared before him and they have been identified by their respective counsels. The complainant filed an application under Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C for compromise with the Revisionists namely No.1-Jayabai Kurmi, No.2-Omprakash Kurmi and No.3-Sobran Singh Kurmi and stated that they have voluntarily entered into compromise without any inducement or threat out of own free will and volition and without any threat, inducement or pressure. Both the parties have stated that they are living separately and the decree of divorce has been passed. The complainant has a daughter who is aged about 18 years and she is residing with he