HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No.546 of 2009 PETITIONERS: 1. Mahadev Lahare, S/o Shri C.R. Lahare aged about 32 years, 2. C.R. Lahare, S/o Late Shri Nand Ram Lahare, aged about 80 years. Smt. Resam Bai, W/o Shri CR Lahare, aged about 75 years, All resident of Village Malkharauda, Chhote Sipat, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Civil Line, Biiaspur (C.G.) 2. Smt. Leena Lahare, W/o Shri Mahadev Lahare, aged about 28 years, R/o Manjgaonpara, Mungeli, Tahsil Mungeii, Distt. Biiaspur (C.G.) (Criminal Misceiianeous Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) (SB: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J) Present: Mr. Arvind Kumar Dubey, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1. Mr. Sumit Verma, counsel for respondent No.2. Ail the petitioners and respondent No.2 arepresent in person. ORAL ORDER (1 7-1 1-2009) 1. The petitioners have med this petition for quashing the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, in Criminal Case No.4233/2009 for offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the l.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another {(2003) 4 SCC 675} submits that though in accordance with the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the offence under Section 498A of the l.P.C. are non- compoundable in nature yet the criminal proceedings initiated for the offence punishable under this section can be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted below:— “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 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 Indian Penal Code. \ 15. ln view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” . 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. . In the instant case, petitioner No.1 & respondent No.2 are husband & wife, they have decidedto end their marital relations and the petition for divorce is pending in the Family Court, Bilaspur. Now there is no chance of amicable settlement between petitioner No.1 & respondent No.2 for living together and parties have filed a joint application for permission to compound the offence categorically stating therein that‘the disputes and grievances between them have been settled without any pressure and fear. In view of the aforementioned pronouncement of the Apex Court and the fact that petitioner No.1 & respondent No.2 have settled their disputes amicably without pressure or fear, it would be in the interest ofjustice to allow the petition and quash criminal proceedings pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. . ‘W 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed and criminal proceedings . pending . A; V in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, in Criminal Case No.4233/2009 are hereby quashed. J//: ”/f Sd l T. P. Sharma \ 3 Judge/ v ) i i-“ h i’” "