High Courts may quash non-compoundable matrimonial proceedings under Section 482 CrPC after amicable settlement.

The applicant sought quashing of the charge-sheet dated 12 January 2021, the cognizance/order dated 19 February 2021, and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1839 of 2021, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani.

During the proceedings, the parties entered into an amicable settlement concerning a matrimonial dispute between Ajay Jatav, the applicant’s son, and Sarika Kumari, respondent no. 2.

The parties had decided to separate and had filed a divorce proceeding before the Family Court.

Respondent no. 2 stated that she no longer wished to prosecute the applicant and sought settlement of the criminal case.

The State raised no objection to the settlement, and counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to permit settlement/compounding and quash criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute, notwithstanding that the offences were not ordinarily compoundable?

Whether the charge-sheet, the order dated 19 February 2021, and the consequential criminal proceedings should be quashed qua the applicant in view of the parties’ settlement and the complainant’s unwillingness to prosecute?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

It relied on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC 650; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; and Dimpey Gujral v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2012, decided on 6 December 2012, for the principle that the High Court may quash even non-compoundable criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC where the dispute is predominantly private or matrimonial, the parties have genuinely settled their differences, and continuation of the prosecution would be futile.

The Court further applied the principle that the complainant’s voluntary decision not to pursue the case, coupled with an amicable settlement, may justify quashing when no useful purpose would be served by a trial.

The Court found that the prosecution arose out of a matrimonial dispute and that the dispute had been amicably resolved through the parties’ decision to separate and pursue divorce proceedings.

Respondent no. 2, the complainant, personally confirmed the settlement and expressly stated that she did not wish to prosecute the applicant further.

Since the State had no objection and the complainant was unwilling to continue, the Court concluded that proceeding with the criminal trial would be a futile exercise.

Applying the principles governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC in matrimonial and privately settled disputes, the Court held that quashing was warranted in the interests of justice.

Consequently, the charge-sheet dated 12 January 2021, the order dated 19 February 2021, and the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1839 of 2021 were quashed qua the present applicant, Sunita Jatav only.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Application and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.