@é HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 89 OF 201 1 PEITIONERS 1. Yuvaraj Belchandan S/o late Shri ‘Kedar Singh Belchandan, aged about 35 years, 2. Pankaj‘Belchandan, S/o late Shri Kedar Singh Belchandan, aged abut 4O years, Appellant no.‘ 1 and 2 both R/o M— 536, Padmanabhpur, Police out post Padmanabhpur, Tahsil and Distt.Durg. (C.G.) Complainant 3. Smt. Seema Belchandan, Wife of Shri Yuvaraj Singh Belchandan, aged about 34 years, R/o C/o Shri Shankar Lal Dewangan, Behind Vivekanand School, Shitla Nagar, Tahsil and Distt. Durg (C.G.). RESPONDENT e State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, Mahila Aarakshi Kendra, Durg (C.G.). VERSUS APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. (SB: Hon’ble Mr; T.P. Sharma, J) Present:~ Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sumit Jhanwar, P.L. for the State/respondent. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 05/03/201 1) The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in shor ‘the Code’] challenging the order dated 1 1/01/201 l passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 1130/2008 whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) has rejected the application filed by the petitioner No. 3 for compromise. Report of the Registry perused. t Petitioners No. 1 85 2 namely Yuvaraj Belchandan 85 Pankaj Belchandan and petitioner No. 3 Smt. Seema Belchandan have entered into compromise, they have decided to end their relations. Now there is no chance of amicable settlement between petitioners No. l 85 2 namely Yuvaraj Belchandan 85 Pankaj Belchandan and petitioner No. 3 Smt. Seema Belchandan 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. Report of the Registry reveals that they have entered into compromise voluntarily. 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 I.P.C. is 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.‘k Relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted below:— “14. There is no doubt that the oject 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. b @ 15. In 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. Permission is granted and as a result of compromise, criminal proceedings against only petitioners No. l & 2 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 1130/2008 are hereby quashed. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Consequently, LA. Nos. 01 8L O2 stand disposed of. Sdl— Ty. Sharma Judge g