[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1228/2006 DINESH CHAND AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Date: 13.02.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Vijay Pathak for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State. **** The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 08.05.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 246/2001, whereby charges for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Section 3,4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have been framed against the petitioner. The Court below has not considered the compromise submitted before it as the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC are not compoundable. It is not disputed that the parties have got the decree of divorce with mutual consent and the petitioner submitted an application for compromise stating therein that all the dowry articles have been returned to his wife Smt. Gayatri Devi and she also endorsed the same and she does not want to proceed [2] against the petitioner and, therefore, an application was moved on behalf of the parties to quash the criminal proceedings and attest the compromise submitted before the trial Court. The trial Court refused to attest the compromise vide its order dated 15.04.2005 as the offences under Sections 406 and 498- A IPC are not compoundable. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, AIR 2003 SC 1386, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that Section 498-A is enacted to prevent torture to woman by her husband or his relatives- Proceedings initiated by wife under Section 498-A against her husband and his relatives- Subsequently she settled her disputes with husband and his relations- Wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce- Application filed by wife for quashing proceedings initiated by her against husband and his relatives- Refusal to exercise inherent powers by High Court- Not proper as it would prevent women from settling earlier and that is not the object of Chapter XXA of Penal Code. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon careful perusal of the judgment [3] rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others (supra) and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be futile exercise to continue with the criminal proceedings as the respondent herself does not want to pursue her complaint. Consequently, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed. The complaint and further criminal proceedings against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 246/2001 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.13, Jaipur City, Jaipur are hereby quashed and set-aside. (K.S. RATHORE)J. /KKC/