- (1.) INVOKING the inherent jurisdiction of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners being the husband and his relations have approached this court for quashing of the charge sheet under section 498A/406/323/315/34 IPC on the ground that the matrimonial dispute which gave rise to the aforesaid criminal case has been mutually settled out of court by and between the petitioners and the de facto complainant.
(2.) ON the day the hearing was concluded the matter was made C.A.V. both the husband and the de facto complainant were perennially present in court represented by their respective lawyers and they have filed a joint compromise petition being CRAN 3029 of 2013 which is already on record. Now it appears from the said joint compromise petition the matrimonial dispute out of which the impugned criminal case was arising has been settled out of court at the behest of the relations and friends of the parties. The de facto complainant/wife has already returned back to her matrimonial home and has been living there happily and peacefully with the husband and the other members of his family. After this development she is no longer desirous to proceed with the criminal case commenced at her behest. Although the offences punishable under section 498A/315 IPC are not compoundable still having regard to this fact that this case is an outcome of some matrimonial dispute which is absolutely private in nature and the wrong is basically confined to the victim and the offender and they have amicably settled their dispute and therefore there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and when I am satisfied that if this proceeding is now being permitted to continue that would result in complete abuse of process of court and would defeat the ends of justice, this criminal revision is allowed and the impugned charge sheet stands quashed.
(3.) IT may be noted this is not one of such case which according to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Gian Singh versus the State of Punjab reported in (2013) 1 SCC (Cri.) 160, that even if the victim or family members of the victim and offender have settled their dispute out of court, still the quashing is not permissible, since the offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.;