Inherent and writ powers to quash criminal proceedings survive for abuse of process and settled matrimonial disputes.

Section 482 CrPC preserves the High Court's inherent power to quash criminal proceedings sparingly and in exceptional cases where continuation would amount to abuse of process or be futile, and that power is not a new jurisdiction but a continuation of pre-existing authority. Article 226 remains a broad constitutional power to do justice and correct injustice, including in matrimonial disputes that have been settled. The non-compoundable nature of an offence under Section 320 does not by itself bar quashing where the facts show that further prosecution would serve no useful purpose and the ends of justice require termination.

---

---

Issues: (i) The scope and ambit of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; (ii) the extent of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in quashing proceedings, including in matrimonial disputes where compromise has been reached between the parties.

Issue (i): The question was whether the inherent power under Section 482 is a preserved, extraordinary power exercisable sparingly where no other remedy is available and where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process or be futile.

Analysis: The power under Section 482 was treated as a continuation of the High Court's pre-existing inherent authority and not as a new jurisdiction. It was held to be available to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice, particularly where the allegations do not justify continuation of a prosecution or where the likelihood of conviction is bleak. The reasoning emphasized that such power must be exercised cautiously, in exceptional cases, and on the facts of each case, and that illustrative categories cannot be exhaustive.

Conclusion: The inherent power under Section 482 is wide, surviving within the framework of the Code, and may be invoked to quash proceedings when justice so requires.

Issue (ii): The question was whether the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be curtailed in relation to quashing criminal proceedings, especially where matrimonial disputes have been settled and continuation of prosecution would serve no useful purpose.

Analysis: The judgment treated judicial review under Article 226 as part of the Constitution's basic structure and therefore beyond legislative abrogation or dilution. It reiterated that the High Court's writ power exists to do justice and correct injustice, and that in matrimonial matters the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where the parties have reconciled or otherwise settled their dispute. It was further held that the bar of non-compoundability under Section 320 does not control the High Court's power to quash where the case falls within the settled principles governing abuse of process and securing the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The High Court retains ample constitutional power under Article 226 to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases, including settled matrimonial disputes, despite the offences being non-compoundable.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms that the High Court may invoke its inherent and writ jurisdiction sparingly and in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of process, and that matrimonial prosecutions may be terminated where settlement renders further proceedings unnecessary.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court's inherent and writ powers may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings where continuation would amount to abuse of process or would otherwise defeat the ends of justice, and the non-compoundable nature of an offence does not by itself bar such relief.

---