The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences if the parties reach a compromise, preventing injustice and abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this common order, the afore-titled two petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr. P. C seeking quashment of FIR No.56/2021 registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Jammu for offences under Section 498-A and 109 of IPC, are proposed to be disposed of.The petitioners in CRM(M) No.386/2022 happen to be the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant, whereas, petitioner in CRM(M) No. 577/2023 happens to be the husband of the complainant.

2. It appears that respondent No. 2/complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, alleging maltreatment at the hands of her husband and his other family members (petitioners herein) over demands for dowry. The learned Magistrate endorsed the said application to the concerned Police, and on the basis of direction of the Magistrate, the impugned FIR came to be registered.

3. It seems that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioners made a statement that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Therefore, on the basis of the said compromise, vide order dated 06.11.2024, the parties were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their statements in support of the compromise arrived at between them. The complainant-respondent No.2 has made a statement before the Registrar Judicial on 06.11.2024, wherein she has admitted the aforesaid position.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.

5. So far as the facts alleged in the petition, particularly those pertaining to the compromise arrived at between the parties are concerned, the same are not disputed. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, the question arises as to whether this Court has power to quash the proceedings, particularly when the offences alleged to have been committed by petitioners are non-compoundable in nature.

6. It is a settled law that the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, the High Court will be within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings if it is shown that because of the compromise arrived at between the parties, there is remote possibility of securing conviction of the accused. It would amount to extreme injustice if despite settlement having been arrived at by the parties, the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue. In my aforesaid view, I am fortified by the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh. v. State of Punjab & another,(2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & anr, (2014) 6 SCC 466.

7. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the parties to the matrimonial dispute i.e., the petitioners and the complainant (respondent No. 2 herein), have entered into a compromise. Merely because the offences alleged in the FIR are non-compoundable in nature, if an end is not put to the criminal proceedings, it would amount to grave injustice to the petitioners and, in fact, it will amount to frittering away of the fruits of compromise that has been arrived at between the parties. The continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, in these circumstances, will be nothing but an abuse of process of law.

8. Taking conspectus of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed and FIR No.56/2021 registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Jammu for offences under Section 498-A and 109 of IPC and the proceedings emanating therefrom, as against the petitioners, are quashed.

9. Both the petitions are disposed of in above terms.