In matrimonial disputes involving non-compoundable offences, the High Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings if a compromise is reached, as continuing such trials would be futile and an abuse of the process of law.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. Surya Kant Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Alok Ranjan and Ms. Lakshmi Kumari, the learned advocates, Mrs. Madhuri Lata, the learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 19.07.2023 under Sections 323 and 498 (A) of the I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act passed by the learned S.D.J.M, East Muzaffarpur in connection with complaint case no. 2921 of 2022.

3. The petitioners before this Court are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2.

4. The allegations in the complaint related to demand of dowry and torture at the hands of the accused persons. However, the subsequent development in this case is that during the anticipatory bail proceedings of the husband of the opposite party no. 2, Banti Kumar, a compromise had been arrived at between the parties and in pursuance to such compromise, a matrimonial case for dissolution of marriage with mutual consent under Section 13 ‘B’ of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 was filed before the family court, Muzaffarpur vide matrimonial case no. 319 of 2025. The joint statement in the said case has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit indicating the fact that on account of one time settlement between the parties an amount of Rs. 18,50,000/- (Eighteen Lakh and Fifty Thousand) was agreed towards full and final settlement between the parties, out of which 17,75,000/- (Seventeen Lakh and Seventy Five Thousand) has already been received by the opposite party no. 2 from her husband Banti Kumar. With regard to the remaining amount of Rs. 75,000/- (Seventy Five Thousand) it has been agreed to be paid through demand draft at the time of recording second motion statement.

5. In view of the supplementary affidavit filed before this court indicating a compromise between the parties and also upon the learned counsels appearing for both the sides confirming the said factum of compromise, continuation of criminal prosecution would serve no useful purpose and there are several judicial pronouncements to the effect that even in the case of compromise in non-compoundable offences, the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. ought to be exercised for quashing of prosecution where the parties have settled the matter and the complainant does not want to pursue the case any further.

6. In a very recent case of Mange Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. [2025 INSC 962], the Hon’ble Supreme Court after discussing the earlier judgments on the issue of family members of the husband being unnecessarily roped into criminal proceedings in matrimonial discord, has laid down that continuation of criminal proceedings, in the event of a compromise between parties even in case of non-compoundable offences, especially in matters of matrimony, would only be an exercise in futility and justice demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored.

7. Such observation has been made with specific reference to offence arising out of matrimonial dispute particularly relating to dowry etc., or a family dispute where the wrong is committed with the offender and the victim have settled dispute between them.

8. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, it had been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that High Court within the framework of its inherent power, may quash the criminal proceedings, if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likeli