Table of Content
1. submission of compromise application in pending matrimonial criminal cases. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. legal criteria for quashing non-compoundable offences under inherent powers. (Para 6)
3. acceptance of compromise to secure ends of justice for private matrimonial disputes. (Para 7)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, (U/S.528 OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO. 652/2023 (CRIME NO.187/2022 BALLARI WOMEN P.S.) ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 323, 504 AND 506 R/W. 34 OF IP AND 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT THE ORDER SHEET MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5 ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a joint application under Section 320 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’/Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023²Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS, 2023’, contending that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the matter is predominantly private in nature and does not seriously affect the society. Therefore, prays to quash the proceedings by allowing the application filed in this regard.

2. The offence alleged in the present case are under Sections 498-A , 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. Petitioners No.1, 2, 5 and respondent No.2 are present before the Court and have filed a joint application duly signed by them.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to some inconveniences petitioners No.3 and 4 are absent and have authorized petitioners No.1, 2 and 5 to enter into a compromise with respondent No.2.

5. The learned counsels appearing for both sides have also affixed their respective signatures on the said application.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramgopal and Another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh³2021 SCC Online SC 834. And another decision in the case of Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another⁴(2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466, in this regard, wherein at paragraph Nos.8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 it is held as under:

“8. We find that there are cases where the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in those offences which are uncompoundable has been recognized. The only difference is that under Section 320 (1) of the Code, no permission is required from the Court in those cases which are compoundable though the Court has discretionary power to refuse to compound the offence. However, compounding under Section 320 (1) of the Code is permissible only in minor offences or in non-serious offences. Likewise, when the parties reach settlement in respect of the offences enumerated in Section 320 (2) of the Code, compounding is permissible but it requires the approval of the Court. Insofar as serious offences are concerned, quashing of criminal proceedings upon compromise is within the discretionary powers of the High Court. In such cases, the power is exercised under Section 482 of the Code and proceedings are quashed. Contours of these powers were described by this Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana⁵(2003) 4 SCC 675 which has been followed and further explained/elaborated in so many cases thereafter, which are taken note of in the discussion that follows hereinafter.

9. At the same time, one has to keep in mind the subtle distinction between the power of compounding of offences given to the Court under Section 320 of the Code and quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction conferred upon it under S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document