The court affirmed the importance of promoting amicable settlements in matrimonial disputes, allowing quashing of non-compoundable offences when parties reach an agreement.

O R D E R

The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioners, who are accused in Crime No.245/2013 of Panniyankara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498A, 506(ii), 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.245/2013 of Panniyankara Police Station, Kozhikode as the matter is settled out of court.

2. The prosecution case is that the 1st accused married the defacto complainant, suppressing his earlier marriage with another lady and while living as husband and wife, 80 sovereigns of gold ornaments and 5 lakhs rupees was misappropriated by the petitioner and it is also alleged that the accused mentally and physically harassed the defacto complainant. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498A, 506(ii), 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled with the defacto complainant who is the first respondent and they are living together. Accordingly the defacto complainant, the first respondent had sworn into Annexure-B affidavit.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the first respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings.

5. The learned counsel for the first respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and she has no grievance against them.

6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only Sections 406, 498A, 506(ii), 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of IPC, which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the first respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108(SC)] and Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another [2013 (1) KLD 817 (SC)].

In Gian Singh's case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-

“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised 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 F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their d