"sr^i^p -^. 'hn.iS" n^n^R^nF ^^ ^E^ ,-:?:"" '('/ HI6H COURT OF CHH4.Tn.S6ARH j<T BIL4SPUR Cr.<ft.P.No.23g of 2009 ^\9 5B : Hon'bie AAr-. T.P. Sharma. J. AsD!*ccrtt Resoondents Vs. 1. ^okesh Kolor*Qv S/o Lcft^ Shri RQW ii *y Kaorav, aged 47 years, occupation- service, R/o Sector No.3, Biock No.25, Room No.60, Kashi Ram Nagar, ftaipur (C6). The Sta+e of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer. AAahila Potice Statio" RaiDur (C6) .Smt.Prabha Singh, age-39 years, W/o ftakesh Kaorav, r/o c/o Ramesh Singh Tnakur, H/N-3, Civii Lines, Rojnandgaon (ce\ FtTEON UNOER SECTCON 482 OF Cr.P.C.) Mr>. Rrt|^sh Tiwo.ri, cour*sle1 for th& aip^Eicant. Mr. Raiendra Trioathi. Panel lawver for the State/resDondent No.l. AAr.Anurog Duy-aj Shrivastuva, counsei for respondent No.2. (Passed on 22"° July, 2009) The aDolicant has filed th's Detition challenaino 'the iudament dated rr- - . - - r - «/ ^ tt >rf ~ 28.4.2009 passsd by ths 4th Additiona! Sessicns Judgs, Raipur, in Criir.ina! -Aooecil No.44/2009 affir'"'ino the iuckinient of conyiction <md order of sentence dated 19-2.2009 passed by the Judicia! Magistrate Fir'st Class, R-aipur', in Criminn! Case No.68/2009 whereby the lear'ned Judicia! AAagistra+e First Cifss has conyictsd the aDDft!!rtrt+ for* the offence Duri>shQb!e under Sect'on 498-A of the Ipd'o" Pena! Code snd sentenced hi??1 to urtder><3o ri§orious i"lprlsonms"t for one year* <yid to poy o. fine of ks.500/-^ in defciult of navnnent of fine to fuF*thsr u?idsrQO sifnDte 'mDr'soHTrer't for 1 month. 2. LeQrlned counsel G^peQrifsg for the c^pHcQnt subtTltts thott a'though offence is "ot compoundabie, but in the light of the dictum in the co.se. of ;. •^.-. • •.gES',.?',;; '•E:->T.^-: L.i^.-fegsSS^ ^Si'^^fe^'''1''" "" ; SSsK- •"> — 8.5. Jsshi' and others vs. Stots of Hsryarsa arri anst.hsr , the proceedings before the courts be'ow be qunshed. Leacned counse! placing reliance upon the judofnent of the Apex Court in the matter" of B.S. •j9sh' (supra) subirits •that though i" eiccord&nce with the proyisions of Section 320 of the Code of Cr'i'T'ind! Pr'ocedur'e the offence u"der Ssction 498-A of the India" Penal Code' is "on-comDoundc'b!e in nciture vet the cr*i?ninc1! oroceedi^QS i'TtiGted for* the offence punishQb!e usf*dftln this section can bs ^uoished by exsrcisi"! iur'sd'ctjon under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C- The releyont portion of the said |udn?Tt€r1it Ss extracted below!- 14. Ther'e is n" doubt that the object of intr'oducino Choipter XX-A containing Section 498-A in •rtie Indion Penal Code wos to prevent torture to a woman by her husbona' or by reiatives of her husband. Ssction 49B~-A wo.s? fitdded with Q view to Dyr!tsh'H(i o. husbcL'l'id <(snd his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatiye to satisfy unlnwfu! de">onds of dowry. The hypertechnicnl view would be counterDroductive and would act aaainst interests of women and against the object for which this pr-ovision was added. There is eyery likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the encts of justice would prevent women from settiing earlier. Tnat is not tiie object of Chapter XX- A of the Ir'difi Penal Code- 15. In view of the above discussion. we hold that the Hiqh Court jn exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminai proceed'mgs or FTR or complai"t and Ssction 320 of the Code does not limit or affect tiie oowers under Section 482 of the Code. 3. Thus accordjn" to the aboye cited decision of tha Assx Court it is the duty of ths Cour't to encourage genuine sett!e"(ents of matrimonwil disputes a"d the proyisions of Sectio" 320 of the Code of Cr'ifiinal Procedure do not !!mit or affect the nowers under Ssction 482 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure. 4. In the instant case, the complainont has fiied COT affidayit i" which she hos specifically stated that the disputes and grievonces between them have been settled without cmv oressure and fear". .-l.;.;;.:."^ ;??.;--• 5. Zr* y'ew of the afo>te*nentionsd Dr*onouncems"t of the ADSX Court ond the 'fctct thot th^ QooticQnt cyrd rssDondsnt No.2/c<?ilflD!QitiQ"t haye. se+tied theif* d*SRutss Q'Ti'cQblv without DFSS^UF^ or fcQr. it would b& i" ^e iMterest of Jus+ice to ailow the petition of.d quash the judgn'ent dated 28.4.2009 passed by the 4 Additiona! Sessions Judge, Raipur. 6. Consequently, •t+'e petition is cliowed a".d •tlie 'ud9nient dated 28.4.2009 passed by the 4 Additiona! Ssssions Judge, Rsipur, in Crimir^! Appsa! No-44/2009 is hewby quad'ied c"d in consequence to the iudgnient of co?iyic+lon nnci order* of sente"ce passed by the Judicifi! .Mc'gisty'ate F'rst C!ass, Raipur. 'm Criminal Case No. 68/2009 vide judgment da+ed 19. 2.2009 Qnd conyiction of the a5De!!csL>it undGF Ssctior* 498-^ of "tiis Ind'Q" P€E?IC[I Code ond sentence of r'iaorous imo''iso"me"t for 1 year and fine of fts. 500/- is herebv s + aside. Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge ! C.' !'c.t' w^s^. ll.'pSSii?-0,