.^-^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FSB: Hon'ble Mr.T.P.Sharma.J.T Cr.WI.P. No.199/2008 ADDlicants 1. ' ManishShukla S/o Ramlal Shukla.aged aboiit 30 years, 2. Ramlal Shukia S/o late Brijlal aged about 60 years, 3. Pushplata W/o Ramlal Shukla, aged about 60 years, . '. • ^ll above R/o Shanichar Bazar Ghhindwara Madhya Pradesh. 4. Ashish Shukla S/o Ramlal Shukla aged about 31 years 5. . ChhaFulata-W/o Ashish Shukla, aged about27 years, R/o :Village Fool Chowk Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Versus RESPONDENTS 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Mahila Thana Raipur, DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh, Smt. Priyata Shukla W/o Manish Shukla, aged aboutSO years, R/o Ganjpara, Behind Deshbandhu School, Station Road Raipur District Raipur, ehhattisgarh. PETIT10NUNDERSECTION4820FTHECODEOFCRIMINAL PROCEDURE.t973 Shri Manoj ParanJapeGounselfortheapplicants; Shri Rakesh Jha Dy, GA forthe respondent No.l/State. Shri Deepak Jain courisel for respondent No.2. The applicants and the respondent No.1 are present in person. ORDER (18.7.2008) The applicgnts have filed this petitiori Challenging the order dated 2.4.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, in Criminal Case No, 256/2006 by which their.applieatiqn under section320 of the Gr.P.C. for comppunding the offence under sectiQn 498-A/34 of the I.P.C. has been rejected on the ground thatsectipn 320 of tlTe Cr.P^C. does not stipulate compoundingoftheoffertce. , I '*^- • -•" •'•tt, ^'M^ffi^"; ^^^^NET^S% ^^SXSSSSsSSg^, •^ ^•: •A- 2. Learnedcounsel for theapplicantsplacingrelianceupon thejudgment of the Apex Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi and others vs. Stateof Haryana and another', submits that though in accordancewith the provisions of section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offence under section 498-A bf the I.P.C. is non-compoundable in nature yet the :criminal proceedings initiated undersection 498-Aofthe I.P.C. can be quashed by exercising jurisdictibn under section 482oftheCr.P.C. The relevant portionof thesaid judgment is extracted below:- "14. 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 to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Sectjon 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relativeswho harass or torture the wife to Goerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the prpceedingsto meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of ChapterXX-A dfthelndianPenalCode. 15. In view of the above disGussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powersean quash crin'iinal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powersunder Section 482 ofthe Code." 3. In the instant case, though the marriage between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner No. 1 has been dissolved by a mutual decree of divorceand they are not inclined to live together yet they have filed a joint application for permission to cortipound the offence eategorically stating therein that the disputes and grievances between them have been setfled without any pressure and fear. 4. In view ofthe aforementioned pronouneement oftheApex Court and the fact that the Retitioner No. 1 and the respondentNo.2 have settled their disputes amicably without pressure or fear and they are desirousof leading their life byliving separately, it would be in the interestof justice to allow the petition and quash criminal proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. 5. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipyr.in Criminal Case No. 256/2006 areherebyquashed.;| Sd/- ^RSharma Judge ? (2003)45cc 675