\L.' '*^^^i'-^^'TO;^'^ ^^\^^:':^ 'iBSiiiiSSisili'& -•/,.^^.%f'~;.^. .' '. . • i..-.^..^'..- : ^t^%:i^i^i^^^i ^^'^^^&'^^^^'^ fK^.^^^^^^W'a^-.'^^y- ^ •-' HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR [SB: Hon'ble Mr.T.P.Sharma.J.l Cr.M.P. No.249/2008 PETITIONERS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1 Khaniyalal Bhawnani S/o Heeralal, aged 43years Heeralai Bhawnani S/o Bhawanani aged 70 years Rahdamal S/o Heerata! Bhawnani, aged 50 years, Nandu alias Nandlal S/o Heeralal, aged 47 years ShriChand S/o Heeramat, aged 48 years Savita W/o Rahdamal aged 45 years Smt. ChandaW/o Nandtai aged 42 years Smt. Chaya W/o Shrichand aged about 43 years Alt the R/o NearMani Mandir, Shri Nagar, Potice Stajon Gondia, Gondia (MH) State of Chhattisgarh Through Mahila Potice Station, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Devki atias Rani Bhawnani D/o Late Rajaram Mangwani, aged about 39 years, At present r/o Nariyal Kothi, Madhuban Road,Dayaiband, Tehsii & District Biiaspur (CG). PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973 Shri Vinod Deshmukh counsel for the petitioners. Shri Vinod Tekam PL for the respondent No.t/State. Shri Rupesh Shrivastava cbunsei for respondent No.2. The petitioners and the respondent No.2 are present in person. ORDER (22.7.2008) The applicants have filed this petition challenging the order dated 10.4.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 62/2008affimning the orderdated 15.2.2008 passed bythe Judicia! Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, in Criminal Case No. 139/2008 by which the application for permission to compound the offence punishable under sections 498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was rejected on the ground that section 320 ofthe Cr.P.C. does not stipulate compounding ofthe offences mentioned above: mm ^~J^. ;—3—; 2.L^amedcounsel^^^^^ of Ihe Apex Court in the ntatter^c^ Hai^naandahpther^submitelhatthQiughjrraccQFda^ crfse(rtion 320 ctfthe Code ofCriminal ProceduFe tte^^ 498^ I.P.C.and sections 3 and 4 crf tbe Dovwy Prohibi^ corTipoundableinnatureyetthecrirninalprc^eedingsinitta^ punishable under any of these sections ca^ jurisdkrtion undersec^bn 482 of the Cr.PX?. The relevantportion^^^^ judgmentis^dractedbelow:- "14. There is no doubt thai fhe o Chapter XX-A GontaJriing Sectioh 408-A iri the Ihdian Penal Code v^ to pr^^ husbandx)rbyrelath^ofherhusband.Sectton498^ was added with a vi©w1o punishirig a husband and his^ relativeswhoharassortorturethewifeto^^c her relatives4o satisfy unfav^l demands ^ hypertechnical wew would be counterproduci^ wpuld act ^ainst^ objectfbrwhichthisprovisjonv^added.^ likelihood that non-exerciseof inherent power to quash the prooeedings t6 meet the ends of juslice^^^^^w^ prevent women from settli^^ obje(rtpfCha|rterXX^ofthelr^ 15< In view (rf the above disc^ High Ctourtin exercise ofits inh cnminal proceeding^ or FiR or eomplaint and Sectio^^^ 320oftheCpdedoesnotlimitor^a^ Section482oftheCode." 3. Thusaccording tpthe above cited^^^^^^d duty ofthe Courtfojencoyragegenuinesetttementsof^^TO and the pr^sions ofsectjon 320 of the Code of^CT limii or affect the powere under sectipn 482 pf the Code of Criminal .Procedure. ...•;:.•.'..•' ^ '-'^ •'.';•'•'.'''-i^/^''^ "v^: 4. In the instant casCt the marriage belween the respondent No.2 andIhe petitioner No. 1 has been dissolved bya mutual dec^ nowtheyhavefiledaJointapplicationforpenTiissio^ categorically stating therein thaf the disputes and grievances bet^ have been settled withoirt any pressure and fear. 4. In viewof the aforementioned prono^ the fact that the Petitioner No. 1 and the responclent No,2 haye settled their clisput^amicablywithotitpr^ureorfear,it^^w^ to allcw the petition and qus^ criminal proeeedihg&^^^ Magistrate Firstaa^Bilaspu 1 (2003) 4SCC 675 '">..~'::^'-.'.'...,.:;-.;-^-^ •'s' 5. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, in Criminal Case No. 139/2008 are hereby quashed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^ \ '^r