Lal Patel 3 years, lanharan Lal Patel S/o Late Badriprasad Patel Aged 55 years W/o Manharanlal Patel Aged about 50 years S/o Manharan Lal Patel Aged about 30 years ^ \\.:-<v,^ ^;.>l^u;^ BILASPUR '^•'.."l ^a'S. .-•*Kt 5) Triyogi S/o Manharan Lal Patel Aged about 20 years All are residents village Parsahi, P.S- Akaltara, Dist- Janjgir Champa (C.G) Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO Kusmunda Dist- Korba (CG) 2) Uma W/o Jugal Kishore Patel Aged about 24 years R/o residents village Parsahi, P.S- Akaltara, Dist- Janjgir Champa APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR QUASHING OF CHARGE SHEET & PROCEEDINGS ® ?"<»^. \ Yugal Kishore Patel & ofhers Vs. State of Chliattisgarh & anothes Shri G.S, AhluwaUa, Advocate along witli accused/petitioners namely Yugal Kishore Patel aiid Dwarika Prasad Patel are present in person. Shri G.K, Beriwal, Dy. Advocate General, for the State/respondent No. 1. Respondeut No.2- Sm.t. Uina Patel is present in. person. (01.12.2006) .3^ TC (1) This petitionisfiled under Section 482 of the Code of Criaiinal Proceduie for quaslrlng the proceedings of Criminat Case. No. 960/2004, pending in tfae Court of JMFC, Katghora, District-Korba (CG) under Section 498-A ofIPC. (2) The facts, as stated by bofh the parties^ai'e ttiat petition.er No.l was nian-ied with respondent No.2 on 11.4.2003. On somfi dispute between fhe parties, respoadent No.2 (Wife) lodged fhe F.I.R. vide Crime No, 262/2004 on 20.5.2004, on which, an offence under Section 498-A i-ead wifh Section 34 of IPC was rcgistercd agaiast the accused persons, who are husband, father- in-law, niother-in-law, Jeth and Dewar. Thereafter a charge-sheet was ffled before fhe concenied Magistiate and the trial was gouig on. 1t appears that during fhc course of trial, respondent No.2 was exainined by the Magistrate ou 18th January, 2006 as PO/-1 a^id in her statement also, she stated that the dispute fcetoeen Q fhe parties has been conipromised and she is residing i.nth her husbaad, The stateiaent ofiespondent No.2 is ffled as Annexure- ^N'^^-St..,^^ ES-ci-<-S%:t;?SS. !"''"'^s^gsyssis-*" [^SW' - 2 A/3. Thereafter, an. application for coiapoiiiidiag fhe case was ffled by fhe parties, which was taken up for hearing by the Magistrate on 10.2.2006. It appears froni the oider-sheet dated 10.2.2006 that fhe aforesaid application was disuiissed by the Magistrate holding that the offence under Section 498-A IPC was not a compoundable offence. ?t is after this, fhe prese-at petition has been ffled before this C-ovrt, in which today the parties are present and have prayed for quashiag the cmningl case said have ;iven fheir consent which is diity recorded by this Coitrt (Please see the order-sheet dated 01. 12.2006). (3) The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section. 482 Cr.P.C. i^gsunling qiiashnient of a proceedia.g under Sectioa 498-A IPC in view ofSection 320 Cr.P.C. is ao longer res-integra. It has beeu obsen/ed by fhe Apex Court ui the Eaatter of B.S. CQLJ 3S that 'fhere is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A contEuning Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woinaji by her hiisbaad or by iclatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to puiiishing a liusband and his relatives who harass or torture flie wife to coerce lier or her relatives to satisfy uula'vful deinands of dowiy. The hyper-technical view would be counter-productive and would act against interests ofwoiaen and against the object for which this provision was added, There is eveiy likeUhood that nou-exercise of uiherent power to quash the proceedings to ineet fhe ends of justice would prevent wonien froni setffing earlier. That is not fh.e object ofChapter XX-A ofthe Indian Penal Code. Observing fhis, fhe Apex Court laid dovvn that such pioceedings can be quashed by fhe High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. m its mherent jurisdictiou. (4) After heariag the parties in persoa, I aiu satisfied that tliey have setfled tiieir dispute amicably and intervention by this Court iinder Sectiou 482 Cr.P.C. by quashing the criminai proceedm?s ^ would ineet the ends of justice aad in fhe prevaHuig facts and circunistaiices, it should not be allowed to continue. (5) For the foregoing reasons, this petition is attowed and the proceediugs ofCnminal Case No. 960f'2004 pending in the Court ofJ.M.F.C., Katghora, District- Korbaare herebyquashed. (6) Befoie parting ivith fhe orier tfais Court appreciates the efforts made by Smt. Kumud Lata Dutt ia patching of the difference betroeen fwo famflies. There shall be no order as to cost. Sd/- Sunij Kumar Sinha :,..-S<i,>! ^•!x'Fy:fv