'VA^- HI©HCOURT OF CHHATHS&ARH ^T BILA^»UR ?SB: Hon'bSe Mp.Pritlnker Djwuker.J.1 Cr.M.P. No. 206/2009 Applicants 1. Ajit Rom Sarcrthi son of Mulchand Sarathi, oaed about 39 years, 2. Smt. Laxmi Bai wife of Mulchand Sarathi. 3. ©irdhari Sesrathi, son of Setrom Swathi, QQed about 37 vears A II residents of Kashichunwa, RaiaQrh, Tcshsil and District Raigorh, CG. ComDlainant Vs RESPONDENT Smt. Sumitra SarQthi, wife of Ajitram Sarathi, a^ed about 24 year^, resident of Ko^hichunwa, Rdaarh, Tahsil and District Rdgarh, CG (Note - Since accused Muichond Sarathi was dead, hence has not been array^d as party) State of Chhattisaarh, Through Station House Officer, Thana Kotara Road, Raigarh, District Rdaafh, C6. PEUTION UN&ER SECTION 482 OF THE CO&E OF CRIMIN^L PRGCEDURE. 1973 Shri SX Tiwari, coun^l for the applicants. Shri Rajendra Tripathi PL for the Stote. Shri S.R.J. Jaiswal counsel for the complainant. The applicants and the complainant are present in person, OR&ER (11.5.2009} The applicants have filed this petition chalienging the order dated 9.1.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrote First Class, ftdgarh, in Criminal Case No. 582/2006 by which their applicotion under sect-ion 320 of the Cr.P,C. for compounding the offence under section 498-A of the LP,C. has been rejected on the 9round thot the offence under section 498-A IPC is a non-compoundable one in view of section 320 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Applicants as well as the complainant have also filed a joint applicort-ion QtA No.l) duly signed by them for permission to compound the offence in which it is stated that the applicants and the complainant (^ -2-— have amicably settled their dispute and thot applicant No.l and the complainant are Ijving a happy married life. 3. Learned counsel for the part-ies placina reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court- in the matter of B,S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another^, submit thot though in accordance with the provisions of section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offence under section 498-A of the I.P.C. is non-compoundable in noture yet the criminal proceedings initiated under section 498-A of the LP.C. can be quashed by exercisina jurisdiction under sect'ion 482 of the Cr.P.C. The relevant port-ion of the said judament is extracted below:- "14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his reiatives who harass or tort'ure the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act a9ainst 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 setMing earlier That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code. 15< In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIft or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limlt or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code/' 3. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court- and keeping in view the fact that the part-ies have amicably settled their dispute and the cordial retationship between them has been restored, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the applicotion and quash criminal proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rai9arh. 1 (2003) 4 SCC 675 m\ -s- 5. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the criminal proceedin9s pending in the court- of Judicial Magistrote First Class, Raigarh, in Criminal Case No. 582/2006 are hereby quashed. 6. ^ In view of this order IA No<l stands disposed of. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^^.