Matrimonial criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482 CrPC upon amicable settlement between parties.

The applicant, Sudhir Kumar, filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 9 June 2018, summoning order dated 23 July 2018, and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4009 of 2018 arising from FIR No. 77 of 2018. The case involved allegations under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

The applicant was the husband of respondent no. 2, Poonam Kumari Singh. Both parties appeared before the Court and stated that they had voluntarily resolved their matrimonial disputes and filed a compromise memo, compounding application and affidavits without coercion or pressure.

Respondent no. 2 stated that she did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings and requested their quashing.

The State expressed no objection to the compromise, considering that the dispute was matrimonial in nature and had been amicably settled.

Whether the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 77 of 2018, including the charge-sheet and summoning order under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, could be quashed under Section 482 CrPC in view of the parties’ voluntary matrimonial settlement?

Whether the compromise application filed by the applicant and respondent no. 2 should be allowed when the complainant no longer wished to prosecute and the State had no objection?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to pass orders necessary to give effect to an order under the Code, prevent abuse of the process of court, or secure the ends of justice.

The Court also considered the parties’ compromise in the context of matrimonial disputes and accepted that, where the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the complainant does not wish to continue the prosecution, quashing may be appropriate to secure the ends of justice.

The proceedings involved Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Court verified the voluntary participation and identification of both parties: the applicant appeared in person, while respondent no. 2 appeared through video conferencing, and both were identified by their respective counsel.

Their affidavits, compounding application and compromise memo demonstrated that the matrimonial dispute had been amicably resolved and that respondent no. 2 no longer wished to pursue the criminal case.

Since the State also had no objection to the settlement, the Court treated continuation of the prosecution as unnecessary in the circumstances.

Exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the Court concluded that quashing the proceedings would serve the ends of justice.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 160 of 2019 was accordingly disposed of, and the compounding application and compromise memo were directed to form part of the order.