HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Petitioner Gr.M.P.No.32/2007 Dr. (Mrs.) Miaakshi Bajpai, w/o Rajendra Bajpai, aged 35 years, R/o Panchshil Nagar, Baloda Bazar, District-Raipur, at present R/o Ravi Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Versus Non applicaats 1. State of Chtiattisgarh, TIu-ough- Ofiicer Incharge Ladies Police Station, Raipur, District-Raipiir (C.G.) 2. Rajendra Bajpai, S/o Late Ram Narayan Bajpai, aged about 41 years, Occupation-Service, Penaaiient R/o Panchshil Nagar, Baloda Bazar, at present R/o Ravi Nagar, Raipur(CG) 3. Dharmendra B.ajpai, S/o Late R.N. Bajpai, aged about 32 years, R/o PanchshU Nagar, Baloda Bazar, Raipur, District- Raipur(CG) (APPLICATION UNDER SBCTION 482 OF Cr.P.C.l Appearance: Petitioner-Dr. (Mrs.) Minakshi Bajpai is present m person along wifh Shri Sudhir Verma, Advocate. Shri G.K.Beriwal, Dy. Advocate General present for the State/respondent No. 1. Shri Rajendra Bajpai(respondent No.2) B also present in. person. None for respondent No.3. p- '-0-' /< .r° Cr.M.P.No.32/207 ORALORDER (25.04.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard. This is a petition. filed for quashment of fhe proceedtags of crimkLal case No. 2702/2006 (State Vs. Rajendra Bajpai and aaother) pendiag in the Court of J.M.F.C., Raipur, District- Raipur(CG). The bnef facts are fhat the petitioner was Biarried to respondent No.2, 9 years back. They are Iiaviag a inale child namely-Master Arunol, who is aged about 8 years. Respondent No.3 is fhe brother-iu-law {Devai} offhe peti.tioner. Oa a report being lodged by the petitioner ia Mahila Thaaa, Raipur, crune No.6/2005 was registered uiider Section 498-A read wifh Section 34 aad Section 506 IPC ^ainst respondents No.2 and 3. Consequeafly, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 and Section. 506 IPC aiid Sections 3 S& 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On 15.2.2006, the leained Magistrate framed charges iruder Section 498-A IPC only. It is stated fhat during the pendency of the aforesaid crimiD.al case, fhe parties have entered into a compromise and an appUcation for coiapounding th.e offence under Section 320 Cr.P.C. was Sled before the Magistrate. The leamed Magistrate passed an order dated 12.9.2006, whereby, the said petition was disiaissed on fhe ground fhat fhe oflence under Section 498-A IPC was not compouadable; therefore, the petition caiuiot be entertamed. It is after the said rejection, on 12.9.2006, the petitioner/com.plaiaan.t (wife) has m.oved to the High Court iiader Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of the crimiaal proceedings. ^A---" .' \ Cr.M.P.No.32/207 Leamed counsel for ftie petitioner ai^ues that now the husband aud wife both are living peacefuHy, fherefore, the proceediags of cmniaal case be quashed ia fhe iuterest of justice. I have enquired froiu the petitioner as to whefher she has entered into a coinpromise wifh the husbaad aad brother-ia-law (Devai), on which, she replies fhat fhey have coiuproiaised the Oft£ ^ inatter aad|leadiag fheir happy Hfe and she does not want to prosecute the criiniual case any m.0re. The jurisdiction of fhe High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding quashiuent ofa proceediag u/s 498-A I.P.C. in view ofSection 320 Cr.P.C. is no longer res integra. It has been obseryed by the Apex Court iu the matter of B.S-Joshl and athers Vs. State otHansana. Ss another. 2003 (21 C.G.L.J. 35 fhat 'fhere is no doubt fhat the object of introductn.g Chapter XX-A contamiag section 498-A ia fhe Indiaa Penal Code was to preveut torture to a woman by her husbaad or by relatives ofher husband. Section 498-A was added wifh a view to punishing a husband aad his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisiy unlawful demaads of dowiy. The h^er-technical view would be counter-productive and would act again.st iaterests of woinen aad agamst fhe object for ^ which this provision was added. There is eveiy likelihood fhat non-exercise ofmlierent power to quash fhe proceediags to meet fhe ends of justice would preveut woinen from. settlmg earHer. That is uot the object of Chapter- XX-A of fhe ladiaa Peual Code'. Observing this, fhe Apex !Court laid dowa that such proceedings can l>e quashed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in its inherent jurisdiction. After hearmg the parties aad after beiag satisfied that after fhe compromise, both the parties (husband aud wife) are leaduig their happy life, I am of the opirdon that it would be just J"-' ^^^^^^ffl^^^^^'^'^'^'^^^^ f-^" ••/ -^ i. Gr.M.I>.No.32/207 and proper for fhis Court to accept the coinproniise and to quash fhe proceedings uader the iiiherentjiirisdictioii. •Accordingly, the prayer is aUowed, The proceediags of cnminalcase No. 2702/2006 (State Vs. Rajendra Bajpaiand aaofher) pending ia fhe Court of J.M.F.C. Raipur, District- Raipur(CG) arc hereby quashed. The petition stands finaBy disposed of, No costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge sunita