\ IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP riminal Misc. Petition No.307 of 200 C 9 Ash‘ok Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Motilai Sharma age 40 years Sunll Kumar Sharma S/o Shrl Motlla l Sharma, age 34 years Ku Sheela @ Bablee Sharma, D/o Shri Moiilal Sharma‘ age 26 years. Smt. P~anna Devi, W/o Shri Motilal Sharma, age.61 years. \ Smt. Asha Devi, Wlo Shri Ahbk Sharma age 39 years. ' AH R/o 9f, C.B. Line, Camp-1, Adarsh Nagar, Bhilai, Tah. & Distt. Durg. -PETIT~IONERS/: 1. (AccuSed persons) The State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Smt. Anamika Vishwakarma, D/o Shri Bachchalal Vishwakarma age 32 years R/o Badhanpara Jhanda Chowk Raipur Distt Raipur (Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) (SB: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, ) . RESPONDENTSI: \ . (Prosecution) (Complainant) Present: Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1. All the petitioners and complainant/respondent No.2 are present in person. ‘3 ORAL ORDER (24-72009) 1. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Ciass, Durg in Criminal Case No.102/2008 for offence punishable under Sections 498A read with Section 34 of the l.P..C. & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also the order dated 27-8-2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Criminal Case No.102/2008, whereby learned Judiciai Magistrate First Class has rejected the prayer for compounding the offence. 2. Report of the Registry perused 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners placrng reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex Court In the matter of B.S. Joshl and others v. State ofHaryana and another {(2003) 4 SCC 675} submits that though in accordance with'the’ H UR , Versus J provisipns of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the offence under Section 498A of the l.P.C. are non-compoundable in nature yet the criminal proceedings initiated for the offence punishable under this section can be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. [Relevant ’ portion of the said judgment is extracted below- “14 There is no doubt that the object of introducmg Chapter XXA containing Section 498A In the Indlan Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by reiatives 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 relative to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry The hyper technical View would ’ ‘ be counterproductive 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 from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the lndian Penal Code. 15 ln View of the above discussmn we hold that the High Court in exerCIse of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does notlimit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” I 4. Thus according to the above cited decision of the Apex Court it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and the provisions of Section 320 of the 'Code of Criminal Procedure do not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure v 5. In the instant case petitioner No 1 & respondent No 2 are husband & Wife they have deCIded to end their marital relations and a decree of mutual divorce was also passed against them Now there is no chance of amicable settlement between petitioner No 1 & respondent No.2 for liVing together and patties have filed a joint application for permission to compound the offence categorically stating therein that petitioner No.1 & respondent No.2 are living separately and peacefully leading their respective lives, and the disputes and grievances between them have been settled Without any pressure and fear. 6. In view of the aforementioned pronouncement of the Apex Court and the fact that petitioner No.1 & respondent No.2 have settled their disputes amicably Without pressure or fear it would‘be in the interest of justice to allow the petition and quash criminal proceedings pending before JudiCial Magistrate First Class Durg 7. Consequently. the petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of JudiCial Magistrate First Class Durg, in Criminal Case No.102/2008 are hereby quashed. _l.A.Nos.1, 2 & 3 thus stand disposed of ,L/I». l“; i I Soma i ‘ l " T.P. SHARMA Judge Sdl- ‘ l \i ' swez’ l l ‘