O R D E R

Dated this the 4^th day of December, 2024 B.S.Joshi and Others. v. State of Haryana and another [(2003) 4 SCC 675] held that the offence under Section 498A can be quashed by the High Court exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023), though such offence is not compoundable under Section 320. Relying on State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699], a two Judges Bench in B.S.Joshi (Supra) held that ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by legislature. The fact that there is no reasonable likelihood of conviction, in the wake of settlement between the parties, was taken stock of. The following findings in B.S.Joshi (supra) are relevant and extracted here below:

“What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband, with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on the earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non- compoundable offences? The answer clearly has to be in the "negative". It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides.”

2. The dictum laid down in B.S.Joshi (supra) was doubted along with that laid down in other cases and referred to and considered by a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. B.S.Joshi (supra), along with other cases, were confirmed by the Supreme Court. It is relevant to note that the subject matter in B.S.Joshi (supra) was specifically with reference to the offences under Section

498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Coming to the facts, the offences alleged against the petitioner/husband are under Sections 498 A, 323, 406 and 34 of the Penal Code. This Court perused the F.I.R produced at Annexure-I. Along with the Crl.M.C., the petitioner had produced an affidavit of the 1^st respondent/wife, therein she would specifically state that the matter has been settled peacefully and that the petitioner and the 1^st respondent have decided to dissolve the marriage, as also, the money matters. A Mubarraat agreement by mutual consent was also effected, produced at Annexure-III. The 1^st respondent would state that, she has no intention, whatsoever to prosecute the instant crime in view of the settlement and that she has no objection in quashing Annexure-II final report in the said crime. That apart, this Court, when the Criminal Miscellaneous Case was moved, directed to record the statement of the defacto complainant. Since the defacto complainant is presently remarried and residing abroad, she had sent a letter dated 02.11.2024 to the S.H.O. through her mother, produced along with the Crl.M.A.No.5/2024 as Annexure-IX, which was produced by the Investigating Officer. In that letter also, the 1^st respondent would categorically state that she is not interested to proceed with the matter, besides recognizing the settlement arrived at. Moreover, the 1^st respondent is represented by Adv.Sohail Muhammed Ansari, who would also vouch the factum of settlement. This