Anjar v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Present C528 application has been filed by the applicant along with the compounding application (IA/1/2025) for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1233 of 2020 (FIR No.192 of 2019), State vs. Anjar, u/s 498A IPC, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

The ground for seeking compounding of offence is that parties have reached to the terms of compromise wherefor a settlement has also reached between them. It is thus, prayed that the present proceedings between the parties may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offence under Section 498A IPC sought to be compounded is non-compoundable. 1

Applicant (Anjar), respondent no.2-Smt. Husan Jahan @ Bhuri and respondent no.3 (Rivama @ Rivana Parveen) are present in the Court being duly identified by their respective counsel.

In the compounding application, it has been stated that applicant and respondent no.3 sorted out their dispute amicably outside the court without any coercion or undue pressure voluntarily with their own sweet will and now the parties have no grievance against each other and do not want to pursue the criminal proceedings. The applicant-husband and respondent no.3-wife have now separated after taking divorce and living separately peacefully.

Since the parties have settled the dispute amicably and do not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case, therefore, there is no useful purpose for keeping this criminal case pending and it will be a futile exercise to ask the applicant to appear before the trial court as accused to face the trial.

So far as compounding of non-compoundable offence is concerned, the Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in this regard in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003)4 SCC 675 while dealing with the matrimonial matters has held as below: -

If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.

Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal 2 Procedure, 1973.

In the case of B.S. Joshi (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated that in matrimonial cases, the settlement should have been encouraged. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted here-in-below: - “The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.”

Since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that there would be a remote or bleak possibility of conviction in this case. It can also safely be inferred that it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to permit continuation of the criminal proceedings after settlement. Since the answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this Court finds it a fit case to permit the parties to compound the matter.

Present criminal misc. application u/s 528 BNSS, 2023 thus stands allowed. Other pending applications, stand disposed of accordingly. AK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 17.04.2025 3