IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 63/2005 Pankaj Kumar & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & Anr. …….Respondents November 11, 2009 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1. Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. Parties are also present in person. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of the chargesheet dated 6.11.2008 (Annexure 6) and the proceedings of criminal case no. 1921 of 2008 arising out of case crime no. 149/2008, State v. Pankaj Kumar & Others, relating to offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 452, 504 & 506 IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, PS Bahadrabad, District Haridwar. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. The criminal case proceedings of which are sought to be quashed has arisen out of the matrimonial dispute. Today parties have filed a compromise dated 11.10.2009 by way of affidavit. They have prayed that the petition may be allowed on the basis of compromise and the chargesheet dated 6.11.2008 (Annexure 6) and the proceedings of criminal case no. 1921 of 2008 arising out of case crime no. 149/2008, State v. Pankaj Kumar & Others, relating to offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 452, 504 & 506 IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 2 1961, PS Bahadrabad, District Haridwar pending in the court 1st ACJM, Haridwar may be quashed and set aside. In the compromise entered into between the parties, it has also been stated that that they do not want any legal action against each other and all the disputes have been amicably settled. Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. JT 2003 (3) SC 277, has held as under: “12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 13. The observations made by this Court, tough in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commissions of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arraigned as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts. 14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with the view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass 3 or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical 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 from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.” Considering that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement and no useful purpose will be served to prolong the pendency of the above mentioned case and in view of the principle of law propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this petition deserves to be allowed. In the above circumstances, the petition is allowed. The chargesheet dated 6.11.2008 (Annexure 6) and the proceedings of criminal case no. 1921 of 2008 arising out of case crime no. 149/2008, State v. Pankaj Kumar & Others, relating to offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 452, 504 & 506 IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, PS Bahadrabad, District Haridwar pending in the court 1st ACJM, Haridwar are hereby quashed. Application No. 1223 of 2009 stands disposed of accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 11.11.2009 PRABODH