HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. 222 of 2007 Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, Judge PETITIONERS r-^ RESPONDENT 1. Smt. Harsha Dekate, W/o Shri Ravindra Dekate, Aged about 40 years, 2. Vithal Dekate, S/o Ganpat Dekate, Aged about 74 years, 3. Smt. Nila Dekate, W/o Vithal Dekate, Aged about 66 years All residents of MIG -11/218, Hudco Sector Bhilai, P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Durg (CG) Versus State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Durg (CG) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973. Present: Shri Shashank Thakaur and Shri P.K. Tiwari counsel for the petitioners. Shri U.K.S. Chandel PLforthe respondent/State. ORDER (Passed on 29th February, 2008) This petition is directed against the order dated 7.10.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, in Criminal Case No. 292/2002 for quashing the proceedings of the prosecution on the ground that after compromise being entered into between the parties continuance of theprosecution proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. ^ ^ 2. The short question involved in this petition is whether continuance of the proceedings of prosecution after compounding of the offence punishable under sections 498-A/34 of the IPC which is not compoundable in nature would amount to abuse of process of law and therefore would be liable to be quashed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"). 3 Applicant No.1 is the daughter in law of applicants 2 and 3. At the instance of applicant No.1 the case was registered under sections 498-A/34 and 323 of the IPC against the applicants 2 and 3. During the course of trial the applicants had filed an application stating that since they had entered into a compromise, therefore the proceeding be dropped. 4. After considering the provisions of the Code learned Judicial |agistrate First Class, Durg rejected the application for compromise on the ground that the offence alleged against them is not compoundable in accordance with the provisions of Section 320 of the Code 5. Counsel for the parties are heard and the impugned order as well as the documents filed along with the petition are perused. 6. Counsel for the petitioners submit that the dispute in question is a family dispute and after compromise by the daughter in law with her father in law and mother in law nothing remains in the case and continuance of the proceedings of the prosecution would be an abuse of the process of law. .^•^.w^^ ^^^ss^^ ^l^ ^ ^s^ 3 ^t 7. Offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC is compoundable without permission of the Court but the offence punishable under section 498-A of the IPC is not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Code. Factum of compromise has been admitted by the parties present in the Court who are identified by their counsel Shri Shashank Thakaur and Shri P.K. Tiwari. 8. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the mafter of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) SC 675 in which it has held that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or the FIR or complaint under section 323 of the IPC does not limit or affect the provisions of Section 482 of the Code. Relevant portion is reproduced as under: "The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of mathmonial disputes. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao V. L.H.V. Prasad are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a 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 ofien assume serious proportions ':^s^^ •^•'^^. t .•' M S '^. ^•s'^'.^ ^ h^N^' resulting in commission of heinous chmes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counseled and brought rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the cn'minal case. There are many otherreasons which need to be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial 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. 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 t 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 relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of woman and against the object for which this provision was added. There is very likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends ofjustice would prevent womenfrom settling ,?v"^. ^ !' %^!SS!h. 1 ..^^•^^^ ^ s~ ^ \^ earlier. That is not the obj'ect of Chapter XX-V of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers underSection 482 ofthe Code." Relying upon the above quoted decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi (supra) this Court has quashed the criminal proceedings in the matter of Smt. Chandra Kiran Choudhary and others Vs. State of C.G. 2003 (1) CGLJ 375 and in another case i.e. Cr.M.P. No. 167/2006 Satish Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others. (9. Section 498-A of the IPC is introduced to prevent torture to woman by her husband or his relatives. But if they have entered into compromise for settling their disputes, then oppori:unity to settle their family disputes would be reasonable in stead of dragging them in any futile proceedings. 10. In the instant case the parties have already arrived at the compromise and settled their dispute, therefore, continuance of prosecution after settling their dispute would only amount to abuse of process of law. 11. Thus, the petition is allowed and criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, in Criminal Case No. 292/2002 are hereby quashed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge