ORDER
CRL. W. No. 4/2000
1. This is a joint petition by the husband and wife as well as the complainant the author of FIR seeking quashing of FIR and the proceedings pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi which was registered under Section 498-A/34 IPC against the petitioner No. 2, the husband and petitioner No. 3, the brother-in-law, petitioner No. 4, the father-in-law and petitioner No. 5, the mother-in-law of petitioner No.1. The said case was registered as FIR No.306/94 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Model Town. The report was lodged by the father of petitioner No.1 Shri Raj Kumar Gambhir alleging therein that his son-in-law petitioner No. 2 Shri Bharat Bhushan Satija had been ill-treating his daughter Smt. Neelam Satija, petitioner No.1 on account of the demand for dowry.
2. During the pendecy of these proceedings before the Metropolitan agistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi, at the intervention of the relations, a compromise was arrived at pursuance to which the petitioner No.1 went to petitioner No. 2 and they started living as husband and wife. Now for the last one and half years they are living as husband and wife. From this wedlock they have got a son Master Sidharth Satija aged about seven years.
3. That since the husband and wife i.e. petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are living happily for the last one and half years, therefore, petitioner No. 6, author of the FIR has decided t get the FIR lodged by him under Section 498-A of IPC to be quashed.
4. Statements of husband and wife as well as of the Author of FIR have been recorded separately which shows that the petitioner No. .1, the wife and petitioner No. 2 the husband are living happily with their child for the last one and half years and that now there is no complaint against each other.
5. Notice of this petition was issued to the State, whch was accepted by Mr. H.J.S. Ahluwalia. Parties were identified by the counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rohit Minocha.
6. Admittedly, the offences which are non-compoundable in relation to the quashing of the offences, the High Court has to act with more caution and circumspection. But at the same time, we cannot say that the power of the High Court vis-a-vis non-compoundable offences is totally curtailed or that the High Court is without power although parties have settled teir disputes amicably. If this proposition is accepted it would be to make the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. negatory and ineffective. The power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is plenary. It is neither flattered by any provision of the Code and certainly not by Section 320 of Cr.P.C. So long as these powers are exercised to secure the end of justice and to stop the abuse of the process of the Court, it will be within the frame work of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The compromise in modern society is a sinequa-non of harmony. Exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. any disputes which emanates out of the matrimonial differences are to advance the course of justice. No useful purpose will be served if the parties who have amicably settled their disputes, buried their past and want to live in a spirit of peace and harmony are allowed to drag on with criminal litigation. It will be against the spirit of the Act to relegate them before the Police and the Courts specially when they have settled their disputes. That will be sheer abuse of the process of the Court. Instead of securing justice, it would amount to perpetuating injustice to such parties. In the present case the husband and wife have settled their differences. They are living together for the last one and half years. Hence, the petitioner No. 6 father of the wife i.e petitioner No. 1 after having given enough time to the parties to find out whether it has become possible for them to live together and after having been satisfied that the husband and wife alongwith their child are living happily and in harmony that he has sought quashing of the FIR. No. useful purpose will be served in such a case to prolong the litigation particularly when the complainant himself is not ready to proceed with the same. It would rather distub the harmony and peace of the husband and wife and their family.
7. In these circumstances, we deem it fit to exercise the inherent power of this Court and quash the FIR No. 306/94 under Section 498-A of IPC as well as the proceedings initiated against petitioners 2 to 5 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Model Town pending in the Court of Ms. Reena Singh Nag, Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi.