f,lf ?%ciSSgi3Sfc- ••"•^^^s » 6HCOURT OF CHthWIIS&WH AT MU^PUR rSBi^ HonZla Mr.T.P.Stwma.J.l CT.M.P. Ni>.22S«Wt Anrficwrts 2. 3. 4. 5. Vs RESI>ON6B^T Ajaf Upadhjwy, S/o Shri ftom Ktehcwe Upadhyay, Aged about 34 years, R/o AUfi-393 Padamnabhpup &urg, CWwttisgcrh Smt. Oeepti W/o^ Aj«yUpadhyay-(t>ivepced) oytd about 27 yecps C/o Sri Kneah Tiuwrt R/o Necr FaristaComplexMotipai'aDui'^.Chhaittisgaph Sm*. Shetafrtda Upadhyay «»/oShri Rom Kishorc Upadhyay Aged abeut 60 y«rs R/o MI6 393 PadammM'iptrDuryiChhattt^oph AahokOi—Medi40 yeaps S/o Shri Padam n'akadi Diwetli R/o MI6-200 Padomnabhpur Durg. Chha**iS9<»*l'> Smt. Reshnn Dwivedi 38 years W/o Sri A*ek Dwiwdl R/o MI6-200 Padunnabhpur 611^9, CWiBttu89<rh Smt. Preati ShaFma W/o Shn AJay Shaiina <ged flbout 32 yeers St/o R<ynandgaon Oistrict Raynahdgaon Chh<rttiS9<u+i Stote of ChhafrMagarh, Throu9h Ihe Wstrict Magistrat* Durg OKtrict Durg, Chhattiagarfi PETITION Uf>«»ERSECTION 4M OF THE C<»EOF CMMINAL PROCEDlffilE 1973 Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, counsel forthe cpptlcants. Shri U.K.S. Chandel, Panet lawyer for the Stat-e. The qiplicanta twd thecompkmHntarepresent in person. OR&Eft (27.6.2008^ The apptic<mts have fited this petltion chaUenging the order dfft'ed 5.4.2008 passed by JudicKil Mcgistrate First Qass, Ourg, in Crinrinal CdseNo; IE^/2006 by which their application under section 320 of the Cr.P.C. for compoBndmg--rt»e offence under seet-ion 498-A of the 3-P.C. has been rejected on the ground that section 320 of the Cr-P.C. dees not stipulate compounding of1+ie offence. '^ I';' 1'li il..-T ^\ ^.,xy ''~'S-3;£S^; kt -~!ss*stes^, :""'"~-'""""~'"""11 —5- 2. Leamed counaet for the applicamts placing reliance upon the jud9men't of the Apex Court in the matter of B.S. Jashi ond others vs. State of Hmyww aml another*, aibmits that thoigh In acconfcince with the provisiona of section 320 of the Gode af Crhninal frocedure, the offence under section 498-A of the I.P.C. is non-compoundabfe in nature yet the criminal proceedings initiated under section 498-A of the I.P.C. ccm be quadwd by exer'cisirq jurKdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The retevmrt' port'ion of the said judgmen* is extractBd below:- "14. There is nodoubt thatthe object' of hrt'rodwing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indion Penal Code was to prevent torhire to c t»oman by her husband or by rekitives of her husbaid. Sect'lon 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husbflndond his relatives who hanws or torhu-e the wife to coerce her or her relatives to sat'isff unhnvful demnnds of dowry. The hyperi-echnicat view woutd be counterproductive wid would act against interests of women and agdnst the object for which this provision was odded. There is every litetihood that' non-exercise of inherent power to ^iaah the proceedings to meet the ends of just'ice —ould preven* women from asttSng ea'lier. Thd- is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Cbde. 15. In view of the above discussiwi, we hoU that thc Hi9h Cburl- in exercise of rl-s inhewnt piwers con <yiashcriminal proceedings or FIR or complalnt and Section 320 of the Code. does nc* limit oraffect the powers under Section 482 of the Code." 3. Inthe inst-ontcase, though the man-iage tetweffi the complflBnant and the applicant No. 1 has been dissolved by a mutiwl decree of divorce and they are not inctined to live t<>9ether yet they have filed a jotnt applicotion for permission to compound the offence cateyrically stating therein thart- the disputes and 9rievmces between them hme been sett-led and good rekrt'ionship has been restored. 4. In view of the aforementioned pronouncement of the Apex Court and the f<Kt thot the tpplicant No. 1 and the comptelnant have settled their disputes flmicabty and restored good relatlon^iip between th<m ^ ' (2003) 4SCC 675 (jt ,„,, j;y^> ^ ll^^('lL^^;;£ ^ is 1 r - 3 - and are desirous of leading their life by tlviag separotely. it woutd be in the interest of justice to allow the applicatioii ond quorfi crimind proceedings pending before Judicial Megisl'rate Flrst- Chss, Durg. 5. Consequently, the petition is allowed ond the crimind proceedwigs pending in the court cf Judicial Ma9istrate First- Class, Durg, fei Criminal Case, No. 1555/2006 are hereby quashed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ii^] ,g^^!g!||gli«ias|