*». '<~-^? <?' '•'~Ki? ^ L- •8k HIGH CQURT OP CKHAn-ISGARHAT 1SILASPUR Cr. Misc. Petitioa No. 361/2007 APPLICANTS 1. 2. 3. VERSUS RESPONDENT Ankalu Ram S/o Shri Itwari SAhu, aged about 51 years. Manoj Kum.ar S/o Shri Ankalu Rain Sahu, aged about 26 years. Siat. Fuleshwari Bai W/o Shri Ankalu RaEa Sahu, aged about 45 years all residence of viUage Bhaisniundi Thaua Magarlod Tahsfl Kurud &. Dist. Dhamatad(C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh through Dist. Magistrate Dhamatari(C. G.). APPUCATIOK UNDER SECTION 482 OP THE CODB OF CRIMINAL PRQCEDURE 1973. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present; Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate for the applicants. Shri V.P. Singh, Advocate for the complainant-Rekha Sahy. Ms. Sangeeta. Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondenf. The appUcarLts and the coraplainant-Rekba. Sahu are present in person. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 07 /08/2008) • 1. The applicaats have filed this petition challenging the order dated 26/4/2007 passed by fhe Sessions Judge, Dhamatari, iu ciimiiial Revision No. 07/2007 afRrming fhe order dated 3/2/2007 passed by he Judicial Magistrate First Class Dhauiatan ia Misc. Criminal Case No. 174/2006 by which fhe application for penaission to compound the ofFence punishable under Section 498-A IPC was rejected on the ground fhat Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. does not stipulate compouiLdiag of fh.e offences mentioued above. 2. Leamed counsel for the petitioners placing ictiance upon the judgment of fhe Apex Court ia the iiiatter of B.S. Joshi and otliers Ws. State of Haryana aad attothet1 submits tilat though ia aGCoidauce with fhe provisions ofSectiQn 320 offhe Code of Criuunal Procedwe fhe ofieiices under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 ofifhe IDowiy Prohibition Act are non-coiapouiLdable iu nature yet thel ®mm:m.al proceedia.gs iaitiated fbr fhe offeuce punisliable under •aay \oi fhfise ' (2003) 4SCC 675 l^- ^- sections cafi be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of fhe Cr.P.C. TIie relevant pordon of fhe said judgment is extracted below:- 14. There is no doubt that the object of ititroducing Chapter XX-A contauiuig Section 498-A iu fhe Indian Penal Cpde was to preven1t;!torture to a womau by her husbaad or by relatives of her busband. Section 498-A was added with a view to puiushiag a husbaad and his relatives wbo harass or torture fhe wife to coerce her or her relative to satisfy unlawful deinaads of dowiy. The hypertechitical view would be couiiterproductive aad would act agauist iuterests of woinen and against fhe object for which tbis provision was added. There is eveiy likelihood that nou-exercise of ittherent power to quashthe proceeduugs to ineet fhe ends ofjustice would prevent woinen fix>in settling earlier. That is not tbe object of Chapter XX-A Qffhe Indian Penal Code. 15."Iilwiiew oftheabove dMcussion, we hold fhat fhe High Court ~ ~ -ai KXStdse of its inherent powers can qiiash cnminal ^A; ^^proc^eduigs pr NR orconiplaint and SectioD. 320 of fhe Code a £^'does^ aot luait or afifect the powers under Sectfon 482 of the .:?>:l:?:..^CGde.: " .•' - ,' . ', . 3. Thus accordiag to the above eited decision ofthe Apex Gourt it is the duly. of fhe Court to enGourage genuiae settleinents of inatrmionial disputes and the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Cnmiaal I3rocedure do not Umit or affect ftie powers under Section 482 of the Code of Crinunal Procedure. 4. In fhe iastaa.t case, the inarriage between the Complainaat aad the appUcaat No. 2 has been dissolved by a inutual decree of divorce. However, now they have ffled a joint application for permission fo coinpouEd the oflTence categoricaUy statmg thereia. fhat the disputes and grievances between thein have been setded wifhout aay pressure aad fear. ••• - 5. Ia yiew ofthe aforementioned pronounceinent of the Apex Court and tMe faet that the appUcaut No, 2 aad the complamaat have setUed their disputes amieably without pressure or fear, it would be ia the iaterest ofjusti.ee to allow fhe petitiou and quasli crmunal proceedjmgs pendingbe&rejudicialMagistrateFu-stClass,Dhamatari. | 6. Consequently, the petition isallowed aud the criiaiaal proceediags pendiug ia the Court of JudicialMagistrate First Class, Dhaiaatan, iri CrimiaalcaseNo. 174/2006 archereby quashed. Sd/- T.RSharma Judge