In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-26513 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:16.11.2010 Som Nath and others .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State with Sub Inspector Vijay Singh, Police Station, Model Town, Hoshiarpur. Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the complainant-respondent No.2 with Smt. Bhawna (complainant-respondent No.2). ..... S.S. Saron, J. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.153 dated 29.8.2009 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station, Model Town, Hoshiarpur for the offences under Sections 498-A and 34 Indian Penal Code and subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof in view of the compromise. The FIR (Annexure-P.1) has been lodged in the case on the complaint of Smt. Bhawna (respondent No.2). It is alleged that she was married to Jagdish Kumar son of Som Nath (petitioner No.3) (wrongly mentioned in the memo of parties as Jagdish Kumar son of Bhagar Ram) on 5.3.2007. After about 15 days of the marriage, the husband of the Cr. Misc. No.M-26513 of 2010 [2] complainant, namely, Jagdish Kumar (petitioner No.3), her mother-in-law Mohinder Kaur (petitioner No.2) and her father-in-law Som Nath (petitioner No.1); besides, her sister-in-law Kamlesh Kaur (non-petitioner) and her husband, namely, Deepa (non-petitioner) started taunting her for bringing inadequate dowry. The sister-in-law of the complainant, namely, Kamlesh Kaur and her husband Deepa (non-petitioners) often used to reside at her matrimonial home at Sardullapur and used to taunt her each time; besides, used filthy language. Her in-laws used to say that their boy is permanently settled in Italy and they have spent huge amount for sending him to Italy. Other allegations regarding harassment and misappropriation of dowry articles have been levelled. In any case, now the matrimonial dispute has been compromised and a compromise has been entered into between Som Nath (petitioner No.1) and Bhawna (respondent No.2). The compromise deed (Annexure-P.2) has been placed on record. Bhawna (respondent No.2) has also deposed an affidavit dated 27.8.2010 (Annexure-P.3) wherein she has stated that she has no objection if the FIR and subsequent proceedings are quashed. Bhawna (respondent No.2) is present in Court and is identified by her counsel. Her counsel, on instructions, has stated that the complainant-respondent No.2 would have no objection in case the FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.2 submit that in view of amicable settlement the FIR may be quashed. Leaned counsel for the State has submitted that in case the matrimonial dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, the State in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. Cr. Misc. No.M-26513 of 2010 [3] State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR. It is also stated that the case is at preliminary stage and the final report has not been filed by the Police. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the matrimonial dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. The parties have decided to part ways amicably. Jagdish Kumar son of Som Nath is in Italy and the petition has been filed through his father Som Nath, who is holding power of attorney dated 17.10.2008 on his behalf. In B.S. Joshi's case (supra), it was held by the Supreme Court that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A in the IPC containing Section 498-A was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A IPC was added with a view to punishing a husband and the relatives of her husband 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. It was held that there is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent the women from settling earlier which was not the object of Chapter-XX-A of the IPC. It was held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or a FIR or complaint and Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not affect or limit the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Besides, it was emphasized that the wife supported the quashing of the proceedings and there was almost no chance of conviction, it would be inappropriate to decline to exercise the power of Cr. Misc. No.M-26513 of 2010 [4] quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound the non-compoundable offences. Besides, it was observed that it was the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes. In the present case, the matrimonial dispute between the parties has now been amicably settled. The petitioners No.1 and 2 had filed Criminal Misc. No.M-6488 of 2010 for grant of anticipatory bail in the present FIR. Notice of motion was issued in the case on 5.3.2010. In the meanwhile, they were granted interim bail. In terms of order dated 14.7.2010 the learned counsel for the petitioners and the complainant submitted that they were ready to explore the possibility of amicable settlement of the entire matrimonial dispute. The case was referred to the Permanent Lok Adalat functioning in this Court. After deliberations before the Permanent Lok Adalat, it was agreed by the complainant to receive `4 Lacs and also that the daughter born out of the wedlock between the complainant and petitioner No.2, namely, Arushi shall remain in custody of the complainant, and her husband and his parents would have not right to claim her custody. Accordingly, the complainant stated that she has no objection if the FIR that has been registered is quashed and the petitioner would withdraw the complaint and suit filed by him in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Garhshankar and compromise deed dated 27.8.2010 to this effect was recorded which bears the signatures of the complainant as well as the petitioners. In view of the said compromise, the FIR is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that no case is made out against Kamlesh Kaur sister-in-law of the complainant and her Cr. Misc. No.M-26513 of 2010 [5] husband Deepa. In the circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the FIR No.153 dated 29.8.2009 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur for the offences under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC and all consequential and subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof shall stand quashed. November 16, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*