1 S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No. 123/08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 123/08 Chandu @ Chandra Shekhar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another Date of order : 24/04/2009 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr. R.K.Charan for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Joshi, P.P. Mr. Niranjan Singh for the respondent No.2 complainant. By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of criminal proceeding arising out of FIR No. 133/2006, P.S. Rawatbhata for the offence under Section 498-A IPC in Criminal Regular Case No.279/2006 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rawatbhata. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent complainant submit that the parties have 2 S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No. 123/08 compromised the matter and complainant does not want to make any statement against the petitioner. Since the parties are husband and wife and therefore, they have amicably settled the matter and no evidence is likely to come against the petitioner. In B.S.Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, JT 2003 (3) SC 277, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the 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 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 XX-A of Indian Penal Code. Keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) in my view, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceeding to continue any further when the parties have compromised the matter and no evidence is likely to come against the petitioner. 3 S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No. 123/08 Consequently, the misc. petition is allowed. The criminal proceeding in Criminal Regular Case No.279/2006 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rawatbhata, arising out of FIR No.133/06 P.S. Rawatbhata, is quashed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp 4 S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No. 123/08 S.B.Cr. Misc. Stay Petition No. 215/2008 In S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 123/08 Date of Order : 24.04.2009 HON'BLE MR. H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr. R.K.Charan for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Joshi, P.P. Mr. Niranjan Singh for the respondent No.2 complainant. Since the criminal misc. petition itself has been allowed, the stay petition stands disposed of. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp