W, FIVE RUPE 5A1.“ & PETITIONERS Q37 3L $mg CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF 2010 l. Nirmal Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri Lokman Jain, Aged about 66 years, Smt. Indira Jain, W/o Shxi Nirmal Kumar Jain, Aged about 60 years, k,’ RESPONDENTS 3. Akash Jain, S/o Shri Nirmal Kumar Jain Aged aboUt 32 years, All are residents of Nehru Nagar, 43/6, East Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG) VERSUS State o£ Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, District Durg (CG) Smt. Prachi Jain, x w/o Shri Akash Jain, Aged about 30 years, R/o Through Dr.P.C. Jain, Kranti Nagar, Bilaspur, Near Jain Temple, Tehsil & District Bilaspur “XE / IN THE Hm: CURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE s § / i O pa. §5airiiiangrs m CA) Eesgandems i» ND {1’53 iii-3n” Jaéra gig Lam Shr§ -mmw Jam, Aged a§9uf 6f; year‘s, Smiindim gain, Wit: Shré N§rmai Kumar Jam? Rged aEeu? 66 }iea:'*s, ékash gash, $J'o 5"»: Nirmd Kim-2v Jain Aged abou? 32 years: AH am resirjanfs 9f Nehru Na§an Ens? $§35iai i‘ris??.uurg (CG) $?a?2 of Cnhaf‘risgarh, Thrargv Mswic'? Magisfrafa, Dis?r~i€f Qurg {Cé‘} $mtPmch§ Jami E‘I'fs‘: 3hr: Aims}: Jain, iiged aisoa? 3G years, Qi‘a Througi‘. $r?€ Jaih, Kmn?i Nagar, 8.3}a5'pun; fxiem“ Ecin Temg)§e, Tehsii r§ D§5Tr§t Siéasgur- (€133 E C: CR‘MENnik (PETE LLSN LJNDEk‘E §E€TICIN 482 OF THE £05 PQGCE‘OGRE i§?3} hie Mr T.P,$h£irmaa $3 Mrsfaazia Mirm‘ cgunsa§ fgr mg 9g?§?§gmr= MrRqgendm Trim?§ai, Pam? iawyer fer raspmden? Naifsmfe, Mn§J<aTiwarL mung! fer msgonden? 54:2 Petitienem—Nirma! Kumar § Eesponden'r No.2 5mtPmcin .. . Iuv'm n m-r n. -.-. Eadim 3am am Ams§n 353:“ <3: Jain are presén‘f if: §er=san before fhe T is, Sm? i ORDER {Qassed ma m May. 2mg} ?e-ti?ioners have fiied “this pe?i‘rian far Ne27§i2007 raendhg befere the for The: affencg punishabla under 5ac'e‘ion 4,98% of the indian Pena! Cg ‘e and Secfion 4 9f The. Dowr‘y Prohibifi‘an .éc'r. The guashmea'? a? Criminai «gag Judiciai Magis?m?e Firs? Ciass, burg n ! u. - _2, N) . Learned mumei egpearing for the. getifiaaars submifs fhaf al‘rhaugh affznce. is n02? campaundebie, bu? in the iiah? 0f The dic‘mm in The case of 5,5: Jashi aad cfhsrs vs, $§afe cf Haryma aad mai‘her", the: pregzdings before 'the court bziow b2 quashed. Learnad ceunse! piacing raiiqnc.‘ ugcn f'hg Judgmen‘r 9f The Agax Cour? in TLe maffar 0f 3.5. Je€h§ ‘nw “‘3 .a su m) submifs ‘rha‘r though in accord‘ancg with i'he- prmisions 9f 5ac‘i'ian 320 of ‘rhe Cade of Crimimi Pracgdure, fh‘v; affancz uader 5551mm 498% 3‘ h'" ‘rhe Indian Penai Code is nen-comgaundabia in na‘rura yet The crimimi promedings inifia‘red fer ‘rha effence punishabig under fhis secfign can be quashed by exzrcising jurisrjicfian under 52¢?ian 482 cf The. Cede 9f Crimina! Precedure. The reievan? gar-fie?! 9f 'rhe said ju-igmen'!’ is exfmc‘i’ed highw— i4. There is no doubt that fhe cbjec‘i' sf immdueing Chapter XX-A con‘raining Seca‘ion 498% in fhe Imiian PenaiCode was i9 prevail? fer-hire 1‘0 a wemun by her husbafid or by reiniives 9f her hLisband. Seei'ion 49$-A was neided wifh Ci View T9 pumsi‘sir‘ig a husharnd ant} his reia‘rives who harass or ‘mrfure ihe wife is cserce he." 9r- her reiafive i'e safisfy uniawfui demands 9f dnwry. The hyperiechnieai view wnuid be coun‘iei‘pro&uc?ive and wouid acf aga ‘r i'nferes‘rs of wome‘r: and againsi ihe e jes‘r fer- which ‘rhis prcvisian was aa'ciea'. There is every iikeiihoad the? non-exercise of inherent power To quash The proceedings i0 rnee‘r The ends of jus’fice wouid preveni' wamen from seiiiing eariier'. Thai is no? i'iqe object 9f Chap‘ier XX—A cf “the Endiun Pemi Cede. 15. in View of 13m: above discussion. we Sioio Tim? The High Cour? in exercise of ifs inherem‘ powers can quasi! criminoi proceedings or FER or- compinini and Secfion 370 of Tine Cede d'oes no? iimi‘r or offeci’ Ti‘ue powers under Seci‘ion 482 of 1’i1e r-ode. w l* u‘i'v of the Ceuri’ to encaumge genuiae sefi'iemem‘s a1? mefrimoniei disguies and i’he previsiens of Sectien 32S of i'he Code of Crimimi Procedure do not iimi‘i‘ or effect ‘i'he growers under 5ec‘i’ion 482 of The Lode of Criminei Procedure. us eecerding in the above ci‘i'ed decisian of fhe .égex Ceuri‘, " is ii'ie D. I 4 .7. have perused Eegisfry report l (2003) 4$CC 675 i s eg, \ In View of the aforementioned pronouncaman? 9f The Apex Cour? and +he fag? fhat The petitieners and resgondeni: Na“? $m1‘Pmchi Jain have se‘rried Their disgufes amicabiy withguf pressure 0r fear; if wouid be in The inferesf 9f gusfice fa aibw ‘rhe geti‘rion and guash fhe order of +he Judicial Magistra‘re Firs? Class; Dur- b. Cehsequen‘riy, the petifien is aiiowed and ‘‘she arder 93‘ the Judicini Magisimfe Firs‘!’ Ciess, Burg is hereby quashed. The pefifioners are acquith‘eei The charge of .Sec‘rian 498-.4 of fhe indie?! Penai Code ami ‘”‘ “4 Sectien 4 0f The Dowry FrehihiTion AeT. Sdl- T.P. Sharma judge n 3.. m/ .