IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR G. (C.) CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.’ J £1 (2506 State of Chhattisrh Through District Magistrate, Durg (C.G,) PETITION UNDER SECTION 48 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, shag gawk Anamika Jain, W/o Shri Mukesh Jain, Aged about 34 years, Gyatri Mandir, Ward- Road,Durg,(.G.) Jain, Mahendra Kumar Jain, about 36 years, Mamta Jain, Sunil Jain about 30 years. Chameli Bai, Mahendra Kumar Jain, about 55 years Kumar Jain, Mahendra Kumar Jain, about 38 years. 2 of No. to 5 residents New Nagar, near Jain Mandier, Nagar, Bhilai, (C.G.) 1973 C ga 9J9 . hémgte MW? ’ 2' ‘ Rim 9. R. u) , 3. 4. 5. VerSuS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Cr.Ni.P.No.1 14/2006 Anamika Ja'in and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Present : Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Advocate aIoQg with the petitioners-Anamika Jain, Sunil Jain, Smt. Mamta Jain, Smt. Chameli Bai and Mukesh Kumar Jain; sniifGKBeriwal, Dy. Advocate Genera! for the $tate. 4 g . ORAL ORDER 21.12.2006 The following order is passed by SUNIL KUMAR SINHA J. (1) , This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal M Procedure mainly for quashing of the proceedings of criminal case ~ No.722/2004, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial h Magistrate, Durg (C.G.). It is also against the order dated 27.6.2006, passed by the said Court. By the aforesaid order, the learned Magistrate compounded the offences punishable under Sections 294, 508 and 323 of the IPC, but he disallowed the compromise for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act because these offences were not declared to be compoundable by the Legislature. (2) _The brief facts are that petitioner— No.1 was married to petitioner No.5, petitioner No.2 is the brother in law (Jeth), petitioner No.3 is the sister in law (Jethanl) and petitioner No.4 is the mother in law. They were being prosecuted under the aforementioned Sections of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act before the concerned Magistrate. Later on, on account of certain compromise, an application for compounding the // / Magistrate offences was after tiled recording and the evidence aforesaid of application petitioner was No.1,vso allowed far as by the the \ /7// offences under Sections 294, 506 and 323 IPC are concerned, it was rejected for the 2 offences referred to above. lt is after the said rejection, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. (3) The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding quashment of a proceeding under Section 498-A IPC in view of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is no longer res-integra. It has been observed by the Apex Court in the matter of B.S.Joshi and others Vs. State of Han/aria & another, 2003 {2) CGLJ 35 that ‘there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-Axcontaining Section 498~A in the indian Penai Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by‘reflatives 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 herrelatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technicat‘view would be counter-productive 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 proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women form settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX—A of the lndia Penal Code.’ Observing this, the Apex Court laid down that such proceedings can be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in its inherentjurisdiction. (4) After hearing the parties in person, who are identified by the counsel (see order sheet), l am satisfied that they have settied their dispute amicably and intervention by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by quashing the criminal proceedings would meet the ends of justice and in the prevailing facts and circumstances, it should not be allowed to continue. (5) For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the proceedings of criminal case No.722/2004 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg are hereby quashed. No cost. )J‘d Sd/— SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge sw’ulta