Cr.M.P. ^ PETSTIONERS 1. Umesh Choubey, aged about 65 years son of Late Satish Chandra Choubey . 2. Smt. Roshni Choubey, aged 60 years wife of Shri Umesh Choubey Both are residents of 52 Samta Colony, Raipur District Ralpur CG. 3. Smt. Pinki Choubey aged'35 years/wife of Snri Praksh Jyotshi, resident of Haidrabad (AP) 4. Praveen-Choubey aged 32 years son of Shn Umesh Choubey resident of Okiohama oity United-States of America 5. Smt. Pranjail Choubey aged 28 years, wife of Praveen Choubey, daugnter of Shri Santosh Dnar Diwan resident of Kanchan Ganga Fase -2, Deen Dayas Upadhayaya Nagar, Raipur District Raipur CG. Vs RESPONDENT State of Chnattisgarh, Through Poiice Statlon Manila Thana, Raipur Dlstrict RaipuL CG. PETJTION 482 OF THE OF Shri. J.N.. Nande and Dhirendra Nande counsel tor the petltioners No. 1 to 4.. Shri A.K. Sharma counsel for petitioner No.5. Shri Akhii mishra Dy. GA'forthe respondent/State. Compialnant/petitioner No.5 is also present in person. OE.D_i,B (1S.9.2009) The petitioners have filed this petltion for quashlng the complalnt/ FIR bearing registration No. 12/2008 dated 17.3.2008forthe offences under sections 498-A, 323/34 IPC on the basis of compromlse amved at between the parties cn 4,4.2009 vide Annexure P-4 in whlch .Ifhas been stated that they have compromjsed the matter cn their own accord withoyt fear or pressure from any corner. 2. Compiainant/petitioner'No.5 Smt' Pranjail Cnoubey who is present before this.Court on being put a specific question, has stated that she has compromised the matter vlde compromise deed dated 4.4.2009. -^- "\^ 3. Learned coynse! for the' petitioners placing relJance upon Ihe judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of and vs. State of Haryana and another1, sybmlts that though m accordance with the provlsions of section 320 of the Code of Crlminai Procedyre, the offence under section 498-Aof the i.P,C. is non-compoundabie in nature yet the criminai proceedings initiated under section 498-A of the •IP.C. can be quashed by exsrGlsing jurisdictlon under sectlon .482 of the Cr,P.C, The relevant portion ofthe saidjudgment is extracted beiow:- "14. There is no doubt that'the object of introdudng Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A In the indjan Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498WA , was added with a vlew to ponishiog a husband and his. reiatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her reiatives te satisfy uniawful demands of dowry. The hyDertechnical view woy!d be counterproductive and wouid act against rnterests of wornen and against the object for which thls proyision was added, Thera is every likeJIhood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to rneet the ends of justice wouid prevent women from settilng earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indiao Penal Code. . 15. !n view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent povvers can qyash crirnjnai proceedings or FiR or complajnt aod Section 320 of the Code does not IJmrt or affect the powers under Section 482 ofthe Code." 4. Thus'-in view of the aforementioned judidal pronouncement of the Apex Court and the fact that the petitioners have aiready entered into a compromise cn 4.4.2009 videAnnexure P-4, it would be in the interest of juslice to aiiow the petjtlon-and quash compiaint/FiR Ho.. 12/2008 dated 17.3.2008. 5< Consequently, the petltion is alioy\^ed and the compialnt/FiR No. 12/2008 dated 17.3.2008 is.hereby quashed. [ \ Sd/- 1 pritinker Diwaker 1 Judge