The High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences arising from matrimonial or private disputes, provided the parties have amicably settled the matter and continuation of proceedings would serve no justice.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.603/2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KOPPAL, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 323, 504 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC, AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 6) TO SECURE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 and respondent No.2/complainant and their respective counsel are present before the Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2 have filed a joint application under Section 320 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’/Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023²2 Hereinafter 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 duly signed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 and respondent No.2/complainant and their respective counsels.

3. The offence alleged in the present case are under Sections 498A , 323, 504 read with Section 149 of IPC.

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

5. 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 Pradesh ³3 2021 SCC Online SC 834. And another decision in the case of Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another ⁴4 (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 Haryana⁵5 (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 Section 482 of the Code. Once, it is found that compounding is permissible only if a particular offence is covered by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code an