Full Judgment
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as the informant Devendra Pd. Singh, who has appeared in person as well as his counsel.
2. An FIR being Mango (MGM) P.S. Case No. 23/2008 under Section 498A, 306/34 IPC was registered against the petitioner and her husband Vishwanath Singh on the basis of the information in writing given to the police by the informant Devendra Pd. Singh, in which he alleged that his daughter Chanda Kumari was married to Pradeep Kumar Singh, son of the petitioner in the year 1994 and out of their wedlock two sons were born, who were now school going children. He alleged that his daughter was leading happy married life but since last few days she complained that her father-in-law and mother-in-law started ill treating her and she also apprehended danger to her life at the instance of the accused persons. He further alleged that on the date of the report, he received information from his son-in-law that his daughter has expired and, as such, he alleged that his daughter committed suicide due to the ill treatment by her in-laws.
3. The police after registering the case started investigation and submitted charge sheet on the basis of which the cognizance for the offence under Section 498A, 306/34 IPC was taken against the petitioner.
4. The order taking cognizance dated 15/03/2008 as well as the entire criminal prosecution has been challenged by the petitioner in this application mainly on the ground that if the allegations made in the FIR are taken to be true no criminal offence is made out against her.
5. The informant, i.e. the father of the deceased bride namely Devendra Pd. Singh, who is a senior counsel practicing in Godda Court and also the President of Bar has appeared and filed an affidavit stating therein that due to some misunderstanding and mistake of fact he lodged the FIR against the petitioner and her husband, who are his Samdhi and Samdhin and states that the dispute has already been settled amicably and, therefore, if the order taking cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding is quashed, he has no objection to it.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of 'B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana reported in : 2003 CriLJ2028 ', has held that for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. Thus, the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.
It has further been held by the Supreme Court that it is well settled that the powers under Section 482 have no limits. Of course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care and caution while invoking such powers. Exercise of such power would depend upon the fact and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
7. In the present case, when the informant is himself supporting the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings and thus, there would be almost no chance of conviction since the parties have already settled their dispute outside the Court and, therefore, in such a situation, exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings would be to meet the ends of justice and to prevent the parties to lead peaceful life. The settlement between the parties appears to be genuine and, therefore, in view of the observation of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid 'B.S. Joshi's case, it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial dispute.
8. In this view of the matter, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the offence under Section 498A, 306/34 IPC though not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. but in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order taking cognizance dated 15/03/2008 as well as the entire criminal prosecution arising out of the FIR being Mango (MGM) P.S. Case No. 23 of 2008, G.R. Case No. 132/2008, is hereby quashed.