1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Naveen Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.157/2008 against the Order dated 27-10-2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jahazpur, district Bhilwara in Cr.Misc. Case No.378/2005. ... Date of Order: : 15/02/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Bhagat Dadhich for the petitioner. Mr. J.P.S.Choudhary, P.P. Mr. Varun Gupta for the respondent No.2. BY THE COURT: With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is finally heard and is being disposed of at the admission stage. By the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks quashing the proceedings in Criminal Misc. Case No. 378/2005 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Jahazpur for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The facts of the case, in a nut shell, are that the respondent No.2 Smt. Neetu filed a complaint before the trial 2 court, on which ultimately an FIR under Section 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Court was registered against the accused petitioner and after investigation, challan has been filed before the trial court for the aforesaid offences and the proceedings are pending before the learned trial court. On 27-10-2007, a joint application was filed by the petitioner and the respondent No.2 before the trial court for dropping the proceedings on the ground that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. However, the trial court dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 27-10-2007 on the ground that the offence under Section 498-A IPC is not compoundable. Hence this miscellaneous petition. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the parties have arrived at a compromise, therefore, the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC are liable to be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi & ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 675. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In B.S. Joshi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellants sought quashing of FIR due to settlement of disputes between the husband and wife , who agreed to 3 mutual divorce and the wife supported quashing of the criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323 and 406 IPC. In that case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that where there are almost no chance of conviction, it would be improper to decline to exercise power of quashing the proceedings on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences. The Apex Court observed that Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Apex Court further observed that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier and that would be against the object of Section 498-A, IPC. The Apex Court further held as under:- “The object of introducing Chapter XX-A in IPC was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. A hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against the 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 proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. This is not the object of Chapter XX-A of IPC.” In Madhavrao Jiwanjirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under 4 Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident and it becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes. In the instant case, the petitioner and the respondent No.2, who are husband and wife, have arrived at a compromise and verifying the factum of compromise. When the parties have arrived at a compromise to drop the criminal proceedings, then there are almost no chances of conviction. Further, in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia's case (supra), for encouraging genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes between the parties, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The criminal proceeding in Criminal Misc. Case No. 378/2005 pending against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate, Jahazpur, district Bhilwara for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is hereby quashed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. rp