A non-compoundable offence may be quashed under inherent jurisdiction if continuation poses an abuse of process and the parties have amicably resolved their dispute.

1. Shri Gyan Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Praveen Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the complainant / respondent No.1.
Shri S.S. Rajput, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2 - State.
Heard on admission.
Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred under S.482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have fled this petition for quashing the order dated 19.08.2019 bearing Case No. 9802/2012 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior with all consequential proceedings.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and hence, filed I.A.No.10291/2019 and I.A.No.10292/2019 under S.320(2) and S.320 of Cr.P.C stating therein that respondent no.1 / complainant does not want to farther prosecute the criminal case against the petitioners - accused. The petition signed by both the parties, is supported by their affidavits with a prayer to quash the FIR pertaining to the case as stated herein above with all consequential proceedings. The compromise was verified by the Registrar on 06.01.2020 stating that offences under S.506, S.34 of the IPC are compoundable but offences under S.498 - A of IPC is non - compoundable the same reads as under;
"Parties have submitted copy of their Adhar cards, Voter Card and Pan Card regarding identification.
Parties have filed joint I.A No. 10291/2019 and I.A. No. 10292/2019 for compromise along with their affidavits. Statement of Complainant / Respondent No.1 Smt. Shilpa and Accused / Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are recorded. Matter perused, inquired and heard as to factum of compromise.
After verifying from complainant / Respondent No.1 Smt. Shilpa and accused / petitioners No.1 to 3 that they have arrived at compromise voluntarily, without any threat, inducement and coercion.
According to S.320 of CRPC the offence u/S. 506, 34 of IPC has already been compounded by the trial Court and offence u/S. 498 - A of IPC is not compoundable. Report is submitted accordingly."

3. The counsel for the State formally opposed the prayer.

4. On perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that all the disputes were resolved mutually owing to which, the respondent no.1 does not want to prosecute the petitioners. In such circumstances, there are bleak chances of conviction in this case. The continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners would be mere abuse of the process of law in the instant case.

5. The Supreme Court in Shiji alias Pappu and others v. Radhika and another , 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 69 : (2012 Cri L J 840), has been ruled that where there is no chance of recording conviction against the accused persons and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility, the criminal case registered against the accused persons though it may not be compoundable can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of powers under S.482 of Cr.P.C.

6. Further, the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012 Cri LJ 4934 (SC)) in para 61, the Hon'ble Apex Court as held as under :
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exerci