1 S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 392/2010 (Nitin Saini Versrus Tripti Saini) Date of Order :: 4th March, 2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. S.S. Hora, counsel for the petitioner Mr. R.P. Garg, counsel for the respondent By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner Nitin Saini has prayed to quash the criminal proceedings of case no. 451/2007 in the case title state Versus Nitin Saini and Others pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum-Judicial Magistrate No.12, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that both the parties have compromised and filed a mutual divorce petition before the Family Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Others Versus State of Haryana and Another reported in (2003) 2 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 and contended that where both the parties are desirous of settling the issues, then in the interest of the woman, the criminal proceedings or the FIR or the complaint must be quashed. In the case of B.S. Joshi & Others Versus State of Haryana & Another (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus:- “13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. [(2000) 3 SCC 693] are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial 3 litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts. 14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing 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 with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against 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. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.” In view of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I deem just and proper to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial 4 Magistrate No. 12, Jaipur City, Jaipur in the case title State versus Nitin Saini and Others (Case No. 451/2007) and the same stands quashed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. DK/-