ORDER : (VENKATESH NAIK T., J.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2, along with their respective parties, are present before the Court. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No.4040/2022, pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Koppal. The said case arises out of Crime No.56/2022 registered by the Koppal Women Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 506, 498A, 504, and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3. The sum and substance of the complaint is that respondent No.2 has alleged that petitioner No.1 is her husband, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are his parents, and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are his brothers. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 06.12.2020 in accordance with the customs and traditions of their community. Both petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are government servants employed in the Police Department. Initially, they lived together happily and a female child namely Aaradhy was born out of their wedlock. However, respondent No.2 later alleged that she was harassed by the parents and brothers of petitioner No.1 and subjected to life threats demanding dowry while she was five months pregnant. It is also alleged that petitioner No.1 physically and mentally harassed her and supported the acts of his family members. On 01.07.2022 at around 07:00 a.m., petitioner No.1 allegedly picked a quarrel, abused, and assaulted respondent No.2, stating that he married her only to facilitate a job transfer, and ultimately drove her out of the house. Based on her complaint, respondent No.1 – Police registered a case, and the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking to quash the same. 4. It is not in dispute that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized on 06.12.2020. Both parties are working in the Police Department. After the marriage, respondent No.2 began residing with petitioner No.1 and they initially led a happy marital life, during which a female child was born. 4. It is not in dispute that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized on 06.12.2020. Both parties are working in the Police Department. After the marriage, respondent No.2 began residing with petitioner No.1 and they initially led a happy marital life, during which a female child was born. Subsequently, disputes arose between them, leading to the filing of the complaint by respondent No.2, which resulted in the registration of the FIR and later, the filing of a charge sheet in C.C. No.4040/2022. 5. However, with the intervention of elders and well-wishers from both families, the parties have amicably resolved their differences. Respondent No.2 has rejoined petitioner No.1 and they are currently leading a marital life together. Petitioner No.1 has taken her back voluntarily, with her free will and consent, and without any coercion or pressure. In view of the settlement, respondent No.2 has expressed her intention to withdraw the complaint and has no objection in allowing the present petition. Furthermore, she has stated that she will not seek any further reliefs or claims against petitioner No.1 or any of the other petitioners. Accordingly, they have filed compromise petition under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The contents of compromise petition read as under: “APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 320 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1. The Petitioners filed this petition for quashing the entire proceedings in CC No. 4040/2022 pending on the file of learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Koppal arising out of Crime No.56/2022 registered by Koppal Women PS for the offence punishable U/S.506, 498(A), 504, 323, R/W.149 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. On the complaint lodged by the 2nd Respondent. 2. The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 both are husband and wife their marriage was solemnized on 06/12/2020 as per their rites and customs, the petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are working in Police department after the marriage Respondent No. 2 had been to the house of the 1st petitioner for leading marital life where she lived happily and out of their wed lock a female child was born by name Aradyha. After that petitioner No. 1 and his family members started to give physical and mental harassment to the respondent No. 2 and also driven her from out of the house. 3. After that petitioner No. 1 and his family members started to give physical and mental harassment to the respondent No. 2 and also driven her from out of the house. 3. Behind this background she filed complaint before Women PS Koppal in Crime No. 56/2022 for the offence punishable U/S.506, 498(A), 504, 323 R/W. 149 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. And after the complaint the police conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet in C.C No. 4040/2022 pending on the file of Learned Prl Civil Judge and JMFC at Koppal, hence petitioners filed this present petition for quashing of entire proceedings. 5. When this being the case that as per the intervention of elders, the parties are decided to settle the matter in view of the said development the present application is filled for compounding of offence on following grounds, A. The Respondent no.2 has already to joined and leading martial life with 1st petitioner and 1st petitioner has take back her with free will and consent without any force. B. The respondent No.2 has agreed that she is ready to withdraw the complaint filed against the petitioner No.1 and other petitioners and also she has no objection to allow this petition and assured that in future she will not claim any relief against the petitioner No.1 and other petitioners further she also admit that no one has forced her to enter into such compromise. C. The petitioners and respondent no.2 settled their dispute with free will and consent and also decided to leave happily. Wherefore it is most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to permit the petitioners and respondent no.2 to compound the offence punishable U/S.506, 498(A), 504, 323 R/W.149 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, in Crime No.56/2022 registered by Women Police station, pending on the file of Learned Civil Judge and JMFC Koppal in C.C No.4040/2022 and acquit the petitioners for the alleged offences, in the interest of justice and equity.” 6. Perused the compromise petition. It is contended that, the continuation of prosecution against the petitioners is not at all necessary and it would be nothing but abuse of process of law. Since the alleged offences are non-compoundable in nature, accused persons have prayed to quash the proceedings and permit the parties to compromise the matter. 7. Perused the compromise petition. It is contended that, the continuation of prosecution against the petitioners is not at all necessary and it would be nothing but abuse of process of law. Since the alleged offences are non-compoundable in nature, accused persons have prayed to quash the proceedings and permit the parties to compromise the matter. 7. Today the accused persons and the complainant and their respective counsel are present before the Court. 8. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the Court may accept the compromise petition and to quash the proceedings. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2- complainant submits that, since the matter is amicably settled between the parties invoking section 482 of Cr.P.C., the FIR may be quashed. 10. Perused the material available on record. The complainant having agreed to withdraw the allegations i.e., complaint registered against petitioners, since, she has compromised the dispute with the accused persons, it will be a futile exercise, if the petitioners-accused persons are subjected to trial, since the probability of their conviction is remote and bleak in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors Vs. State Of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466 at Para Nos.31 to 35 has held as under: "31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: (I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. (II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. (III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. (IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. (V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. (VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. (VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/ investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime. 32. After having clarified the legal position in the manner aforesaid, we proceed to discuss the case at hand. 33. In the present case, FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 was registered under Section 307/324/323/34 IPC. Investigation was completed, whereafter challan was presented in the court against the petitioner herein. Charges have also been framed; the case is at the stage of recording of evidence. At this juncture, parties entered into compromise on the basis of which petition under Section 482 of the Code was filed by the petitioners namely the accused persons for quashing of the criminal proceedings under the said FIR. As per the copy of the settlement which was annexed along with the petition, the compromise took place between the parties on 12.7.2013 when respectable members of the Gram Panchayat held a meeting under the Chairmanship of Sarpanch. It is stated that on the intervention of the said persons/Panchayat, both the parties were agreed for compromise and have also decided to live with peace in future with each other. It is stated that on the intervention of the said persons/Panchayat, both the parties were agreed for compromise and have also decided to live with peace in future with each other. It was argued that since the parties have decided to keep harmony between the parties so that in future they are able to live with peace and love and they are the residents of the same village, the High Court should have accepted the said compromise and quash the proceedings. 34. We find from the impugned order that the sole reason which weighed with the High Court in refusing to accept the settlement between the parties was the nature of injuries. If we go by that factor alone, normally we would tend to agree with the High Court´s approach. However, as pointed out hereinafter, some other attendant and inseparable circumstances also need to be kept in mind which compel us to take a different view. 35. We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz., “respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till now, which could not be finalized”. This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly." 12. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra and the fact that, it is just and necessary to allow the compromise petition and parties are permitted to compound the offence punishable under Sections 506, 498(A), 504, 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 4 Of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. I am of the opinion that the compromise arrived at between the parties is hereby accepted and criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No.56/2022 of Koppal Women Police Station on the file of learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal is required to be quashed. 13. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i. The compromise petition filed under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. by both the parties is accepted. ii. The criminal petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. iii. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.56/2022 of Koppal Women Police Station, on the file of learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court Koppal for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 498(A), 504, 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 4 Of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are quashed. In view of the disposal of the criminal petition, pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off.