1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Smt. Pappu Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.377/2008 DATE OF ORDER :: March 28, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Suresh Kumbhat, for the petitioner. Mr.N.Moolchandani, for the State. Mr.Tapan Vaishnav, for non-petitioner No.2. BY THE COURT: By the instant Cr. Misc. Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.209/2003 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Balotra, Distt. Barmer (for short `the trial court' hereinafter) for the offence under sections 498-A I.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Facts giving rise to the instant petition are that 2 respondent No.2 Kishana Ram married to petitioner Smt. Pappu. However, during their marital life, there had been some differences, therefore, a report was lodged by petitioner and the police investigated the matter and filed the challan against respondent No.2 for the offence under section 498-A I.P.C. However, during trial of the case, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and moved before the trial court seeking compounding the offence. The trial court declined to accept the compromise for the offence under section 498-A I.P.C. on the ground that the offence under section 498-A I.P.C. is not compoundable under section 320 Cr.P.C. Hence, this petition. Petitioner Pappu Devi and respondent No.2 Kishana Ram are present in Court. Petitioner Pappu Devi has filed a compromise before this Court being CRLMA No.697/2008. She has been identified by her counsel Mr.Suresh Kumbhat and respondent No.2 Kishana Ram has been identified by his counsel Mr.Tapan Vaishnav. The compromise has been verified by Registrar Administration of this Court. Petitioner Pappu Devi is present in Court. She submits that she has settled the dispute amicably and the misunderstanding between her husband and herself has been cleared and they have been living together as husband and wife and in order 3 to settle the matrimonial home, she seeks to compound the offence as also to quash the proceedings. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the CRLMA No.697/2008 is allowed permitting the petitioner to compound the offences. In B.S.Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 SCC (Cri.) 848, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing the FIR. The Apex Court further observed that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from setting earlier and that is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the IPC. Keeping in view the aforesaid decision and since the parties have resolved their dispute and petitioner is now living with her husband, respondent No.2 peacefully, no useful purpose will be served in allowing the proceedings to continue 4 any more. In the result, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The criminal proceeding in Criminal Case No.209/2003 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Balotra, Distt. Barmer is hereby quashed. [H.R.PANWAR],J. m.asif/-