1M HSGH gGiiRT $F CHHATTI$G RH AT EILéS?€JR CV.M.F‘.NG.2W Gf 2W3 1 (Petition under Sectien 482 of the CLEO.) ($3 :Hon’bie Mr. T.P.$harma,‘ J.) Mr. Arun Kochar. counsei for the petitioner. MLRakesh Kumar Jha, Dy.Govt.Ad\/ocate for respondent Naiistatg Mr.Anand Pandey, caunsei far respondents No.2 to 6. Petitioner-SmtPreeti Mishra and respondents No.2 ta 6-Devishankar Mishra, Ghanshyam Prasad Mishra. SmtMamta Mishra. Smt.Sus‘nma aney and Arun Kumar Pandey are present in pereen. OREER (Passed on 2w“ April, 2011) r 1. The petitioner has fiied this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.F.C. for quasnment of Criminal Case No.202/201Ci pending befare the Judiciei Magistrate First Ciass, 8iiaspur on the basis of F.i.R iodged by her under Petiticne: 1. SmtPmeti Mishra, W/a §evi Shankax' Cemplainant Mishra, Aged about 26 years, Rio Madam Mahal, House No.5‘i3, Ranipur Ma§i Moha¥!a, Jabalpur {MR} Vs Respcna‘ents 1. taie of Chhamsgarh, Through women Pciice statien: Bélaspur (C.G.) (2 to 6 non-applicants 2. Devishankar mama, Sim Ghanshyam Prasad Mishra, agad abnut 35 years, Ric Sakin -— Masturi, 90Iice Sfaiion & Tahsii- MasturL Dfstrict-Biiaspur {c.G‘) 3. Ghanshyam Prasad Mishra, SIG Late Bharat Bhamshe Mishra, aged'abeut 72 years, Rio Sakin —- Masturi, Poiice Station & Tahsi§ —- Masturi, Districi -— Biiaspur (C.G.). 4. SmtMamta Mishra, W/o A.K.Mishra, aged about 4O yearsi Rio Ragkishar Nagar, BRaspur, Patina Statm‘n Sarkanda, Ta‘nsii and i3§strict-Bi}aspur (C.G.) 5. Arun Kumar Pandey, 810 Late KP. Pandey, Aged about 45 years, FUD Hou$e No.10 3. Swim—7, ahi!ai Nagar, Di$trict — Burg (0.6.) Seciien 4§8—A read with Sectian 34 of thg LRC against respandants No.2 to 6 who are husband and relatives of hu3band. ‘2- N Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that aithough offence is not compoundabke‘ but in the iight ofithe dictum in the caéo of RS. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another‘, the proceedings before ihe court beiow be quashed. Learned counsei piacéng reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of 5.3. Joshi (supra) submits that though in accordance with the provieions of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., the offence under Section 498-A of the indian Penai Code is non-compoundable in nature yet the criminei proceedigs initiate for the ffence punishebie under this ectn can be quashed by exerising jurisdictio under Section 482 of the Cr.P.G The c n i ievani portion of the said judgment is extracted beicw1~ 4. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Sectn 498-A in the indian Peni Code was to prevnt torture to a oman by her hbd or by reiatives of her husband. $ection 498-A was dded with a view to punishing a husband and his reiatives who harass or uniawiui torture the deands wife to of coerce dowry. The her hypertechnioai r her reiative Vw to satisfy. wouid be countrproductive and wouid act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is ever iikeiiood that non—exercise o inherent power to quash he proceedings to meet the nds of justice would prevent women rom settling earlr. That is no the object of Chapter XX-A of the ndian Penal Cod. Court 15V in in View exercise of th of above its inherent discussion, powers e can i uash that the riminai High proceedings or FIR or oomiaint and Section 320 of the of Code the does Code. not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 3. Thus according to the above cited decision o the Supreme Court, it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settiements oi matrimoniai disputes and the provisions of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. do not iimit or affect the powers under ection 82 of the Cr.P.C. i have perus Registry report. 5i i vw of the aforementioned pronouncement of the Supreme Court d the tact that th petitioner and respondents No.2 to 5 have settied their 1 {2003) 4366 6755 n d o sio re L 1 io a e w usan a m o ie e y h f t e f ie t i e e w hod q c p f S 4 4. ed n ie an e