,-?;[3Eaa!' ,,-.:ltfc "^^ •i.^!' -r..:... r^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.No.617of2008 APPLICANT COMPLAINANT VERSUS NON-APPLICANT Kajal Kumar Sarkar S/o Late S.P.Sarkar, agsd about 31 years, Rssident of viiiags Barod, Thana-Gharghora, Tahsil Gharghora, Disfrict Raigarh (C.G.) Smt. Sbipra Sarkar W/o Kajal Kumar Sarkar, Aged about 27 years, D/o Shri P.B. Pal, R/o Amaraiya Para, Korba, Tahsil & District-Korba (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through-Station House Officer, Thana Kotwali, Korba, District-Korba (C.G.) (PETITION UNER SECTION 482 OF Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'bte Mr. T.P. Sharma. J) Present: Shri S.K.Tiwari, counsel for the appiicant. Shri Vinay Pandey, counse! for the complainant. Shri Sameer Behar, Panel lawyer for the State. ": s*s%ags< •-=-3-^^ ORALORDER (Passed on 19/01/2009) 1. The applicant has filed this petition for quashment of the proceedings of Criminal Case No.1881/2006 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba by which the application for permission to compound the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was rejected on the ground that Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. does not stipuiate compounding of the offence mentioned above. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant placing reliance upon fte judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Harvana and another submits that though in accordance with the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminai Procedure the offence under Seclion 498-A I.P.C. ars non-compoundable in nature yet the criminal proceedings initiated for the offence punishable under any of these sections can be quashed by exercising 1 (2003) 4 SCC 675 •y^ ^ 'sll 2- jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted below:- "14. There is no doubt that the object of infroducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code 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 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 tndian Penal Cods. 15. In view of the above discussion, w®hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or camplaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 oftheCode." 3. 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 ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure. 4. in the instant case, appiicant and complainant are accused and complainant. A decree of mutual divorce has been passed between the parties. Now they have filed a joint application for permission to compound the offence categoricalty stating therein that the disputes and grievances brtween them have been settted without any pressure and fear. 5. In view of the aforementioned pronouneement of the Apex Court and the fact applicant-Kaja! Kumar Sarkar and compiainant-Smt. Shipra Sarkar have settled their disputes amicably without pressure or fear, it woutd be in the interest of justice to aliow the petition and accused/applicant-Kajal Kumar Sarkar be •vMii'.h •f::"'"^ ;•• :'r K i<'{ •.•x ^.^f ~s acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penai Code. 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed and accused/applicant-Kajal Kumar Sarkar be acquitted for the offence punishable under SscUon 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge