Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh of Allahabad High Court on 01/10/2019 passed an Order in the matter of Mohd. Kafeel and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another that giving punishment is not necessary for every criminal offence. The Application for compromise filed by the Applicants who were accused of harassing & torturing their wives. They had been charged under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 306 of IPC and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the trial court has dismissed their application for compromise on the ground that the offences alleged therein were non-compoundable.
Court stating that “The object of criminal law is primarily to visit the offender with certain consequences. He may be made to suffer punishment or by paying compensation to the victim, but the law at the same time also provides that it may not be necessary for every criminal offence to mete out punishment, particularly, if the parties concerned want to bury the hatchet.” The court relied on the Judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of B.S Joshi & Ors v. State of Haryana & Anr wherein the court held that:-
“Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added to punish a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy the unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counterproductive and would act against the interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier.”
Court also relied on the decision of Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., wherein the court laid down a guideline for quashing of criminal proceeding arising out of non-compoundable offence under section 320 of CrPC based on compromise and amicable settlement f matrimonial cases. Supreme Court clarified that “the power conferred under section 482 of CrPC, to quash criminal proceeding for non-compoundable offences under section 320, could be exercised in cases having predominantly civil character and where the parties had resolved the dispute amongst themselves, particularly in cases arising out of commercial transaction, matrimonial relationship or family disputes.” In the view of above, the court held that:-
“Even in the cases which involved non-compoundable offences, their quashing has been approved by the Apex Court if the nature of the offence is such which does not have grave and wider social ramifications and where the dispute is more or less confined between the litigating parties.”
The court allowed the application and quashed the proceeding against the applicants.
 (2003) 1 SCC 848
 AIR 2019 SC 1296