IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10554 of 2011 Subodh Kumar Mishra & Ors. Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 3 16.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned P.P. Present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 29.05.2010 passed by S.D.J.M., Patna summoning the petitioners under Section 498(A), 406 of the I.P.C., 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with Complaint Case No.3187C of 2009. Both the parties have submitted that case has been compromised amongst the parties and in pursuance thereof O.P. No.2, wife is residing at her Sasural with her husband and other family members as such, though the offence happens to be non-compoundable but he does not want to defend the order impugned. Learned A.P.P. fairly concedes that in the background of new development visualizing free conduct of the parties, the court should allow to constellates permit the harmonious and congenial atmosphere to continue so that the family be saved. True it is that Section 498A of the I.P.C. does not find place within column of compoundable offence. However, times without number the matter has come up before the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point whether the order of cognizance should be quashed in the background of restoration of conjugal life amongst the parties and the answer of the Hon’ble Apex Court happens to be affirmatree as has been helds reported in AIR 2003 page 1386: 2 “13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and others ((2000) 3 SCC 693) are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the Courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly extent which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counseled and brought about re-oproachment are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. Thee are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different Courts”. “14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A 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 XXA of Indian Penal Code”. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the order impugned is set aside. Consequent thereupon, petition is allowed. PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)