1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Dharampal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1235/2007 against the Order dated 02-04-2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class No.3, Bikaner. ... Date of Order: : 19/02/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Niranjan Singh for the petitioners. Mr. L.R.Upadhyay, P.P. Mr. Manish Dadhich for the respondent No.2. BY THE COURT: Issue notice for final disposal. Mr. L.R.Upadhyay, public prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of respondent State and Mr. Manish Dadhich accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being finally heard and disposed of at the admission stage. By the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners seek quashing the proceedings in Criminal Misc. Case No. 33/2004 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist 2 Class No.3, Bikaner for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The facts of the case, in a nut shell, are that the respondent No.2 Rishika wife of the petitioner No.1 filed a complaint before the police Station-Mahila Thana, Bikaner against six persons including the present petitioners. However, after investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC before the trial court and the proceeding is pending before the trial court. On 02-04-2007, an application was filed by the respondent No.2 and the petitioners before the trial court for dropping the proceedings on the ground that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, entire Stridhan has already been received by the complainant respondent No.2 and by mutual consent, the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 has already been dissolved, the complainant would not produce any evidence in the matter and therefore, in such circumstances, the complainant does not want to continue the proceeding. However, the trial court dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 02- 04-2007. 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 3 against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC may 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 appellants sought quashing of FIR due to settlement of disputes between the husband and wife, who agreed to 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 4 498-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 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 marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 has already been dissolved by mutual consent and they have arrived at a compromise to drop the proceedings and verified the factum of compromise. When the parties have arrived at a compromise to drop the criminal proceedings, then there are 5 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 petitioners. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The order impugned is set aside and the criminal proceeding in Criminal Misc. Case No. 33/2004 pending against the petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class No.3 Bikaner for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC is hereby quashed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. rp