HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRL.P.No.4532 of 2010 & Crl.P.Nos.4646, 4647 and 4648 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Crl.P.No.4532 of 2010 is filed praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.620 of 2009 pending on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 452 and 506 IPC. Crl.P.No.4646 of 2010 is filed praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.93 of 2010 pending on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sanga Reddy for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 324 and 506 IPC. Crl.P. No.4647 of 2010 is filed praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.8 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sanga Reddy for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. Crl.P. No.4648 of 2010 is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.40 of 2010, which arises out of Crime No.409 of 2008 of Ramachandrapuram P.S., Medak District, registered for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner herein is an advocate and the de facto complainant in all the cases is the wife of the petitioner. The husband of the de facto complainant died in the year 2002 and after the death of her husband the de facto complainant married the petitioner on 10.2.2006. The de facto complainant had a daughter through her first husband. She alleged that, the petitioner herein demanded additional dowry and harassed her, which resulted in above referred cases. The de facto complainant has filed the above referred cases. She is being represented by Sri P.Kalyan Rao, Advocate. It is submitted that the parties have settled the disputes out of court. In view of the settlement of disputes, it is prayed that all the impugned proceedings may be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana[1] submitted that though some offences are not compoundable, the court can exercise inherent powers and quash the proceedings. The observations of the Supreme Court in G.V.Rao v. L.H.V.Prasad [(2000) 3 SCC 693] have been referred wherein it was observed that there has been outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The Apex Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (supra) in paras 11, 13, 14 and 15 held as follows: “In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others [(1988) 1 SCC 692], it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings. 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 extent 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 re-approachment 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 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 XXA containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to 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 hyper- technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of woman 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 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 under Section 482 of the Code. Admittedly, when the de facto complainant does not support the case of the prosecution, ultimately the cases have to be thrown away and the accused has to be acquitted. In all such cases, no useful purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings. The de facto complainant, who is present before this Court, has stated that she has passed M.A in Public Administration and that she has voluntarily compromised the matter with the accused. She is also working in a private organization. She has categorically stated that without any inducement and coercion, she has come forward and has settled the disputes with the petitioner herein. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, all the impugned proceedings have been quashed. The criminal petitions are accordingly allowed. ____________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J. 27.5.2010 kpr [1] AIR 2003 SC 1386 (1)