HEGH CGURT QF SEEATTISGARE-i, BELA$§EE§R ELMJ’. 1‘30. 150 9f 2Q©7 PETITEQNER$ 1, G€€ta Gupta W70. Ram Moham Gupta, Aged about 55 ysars,‘ 2. Rajn Mohari Gupi‘a Sic) Lata Lakhan Lal Gupta, Aged about 62 Wars, Sunil Kumar Gupta S] 0 Ram Mohan Gupta, Aged about 35 ysars . All R/o Ketha Para, Aarallg, Dist : Raipur— (C.G.) vexsus (0'4 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through — RS. City Katwali, Bilaspur, Dist : Bilaspur {(3. G.) HQN-APPLEQAMT t0 Ream Guyta W/ o Shri Email Kumar Gupta, Aged abeut 31 years, R/ o Beside Shiv Talkiss, Bilaspur (C. G} (APPLIQA’EEQN UEDER Sa'ECTIGN 4-82 G? Sr.?.£,§ aypearance: Smt. Ge€ta Gupta, Shu' Ram Mohau Gupta and Shli 8111131 Kumar Gupta (accused persons] pstitiorlers) appsal in perso alongwith Ku. SLmiEa Jain, Advocate. f3hm' N.K. Mahta, Pa1161 Lawysr State] mspondent n0. 1. Smt. Reena Gupta Wifé of Suail Kumar Gupta, f complaipam‘ appears in person alongwi‘rh Shn‘ Prat€€k Shama; Aévocate. app€ars for fhs QmL GRDER 199.0529??? $§§N§l KEMékR SEKHA, - é , Heard. This peti’rion has boon filod agai‘nsi rim ordsr da‘md 21.08.2007 passod by the Ariditioual Chief Judicial Magistram, Bilaspur ill Criminal Cass No. 944] 2006, Wham by 116 has rejocted n A L 9ft Cr.M.P. 15§XZGG7 thé application iiled. undai‘ Section 320 of {ERG for compoundmg 1116 offenm and mrmination of tbs carye 011 accoum. of composition, T115 laanmd Magistrata has statéd that as . A the ofiéncs undsr asction 498—A is 11on—compounc1abi€, thergforé, 110 ordas can b6 passsd on such application. Lsarned comma far both ‘Lhe partics argue that now tha complailaant/rss90ndent N02 and the petitioncrs have amicably settled thsir mattcr and rsspondent No2 does Ilot wallt to prosscutc the criminal case 33y more and for this reason, thc {3alti63 had fllcd an appEicatioxl for composition befoa‘c the Magistrate on 13.03.2007, which was rejected by the said Court by passing impugned order dated 21.03.2007. They pray for quashment of criminal proceedings on the ground of settlemeat of the wife and also on the ground of compromise between the parties. ‘ I have heard learned counsel for the parties at lettgth a11d have also perused the records of the cn'minal misc. petition. Admittedly, the respondeut No. '2 is the Wife of petitioner No. 3 and is daughter—iii—law of petitioners No. 1 8a 2. On some dispute after marriage, she lodged a complaint vide crime No. 117i 200 under Sections 498—A (“m 506/34 of LRC. The charge—sheet in the said mime was nled and the cri’mioal case No. 944f2005 was pending pertaining to the said crime number in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is for this crime number, the said application was filed, which was dismissed. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 4-82 Cr.P.C., regarding quashment of a proceeding u/s 498—A 1.P.C. in View of Section 320 Cr:P.C. is no longer res integra. it has been observed by the Apex Court in the matter of RS. Jeahi and others — Vs- State of gamma & anottter, 2003 {2) C.G.L.J. 35 that “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 m 4 ralativas to $1t4$iv unlawful dgmands of dowry. Th6 hyper—tsehnical Visw would be couutvar productiva emd would aCt agajnSt infarassm of womaa 2.11:1 agajgst the objsct for which this pyovision WaS addsé. Them is 3/6137 likelihood that non—éxsrcise 0f inh€r€i1t powm‘ to quash $116 procealings to meet the ends of justice would prewnt Women from smiling sal‘llar. That is not th€ object of ChaptEr —XX—A of i116 Endiam Psnal Cocis.’ Obsewing this, the Apax Court 1am} (Eawn that such 12roc56dings can b5 quashal 33y tbs High Court undsr Section 482 Cr.P.C. k1 its i11h€r€nt jurisdiction Aftcr heamhg thc partics aad on being satimflod that tho particS have mutuaHy compromiscd The mattcr gold tho complamant {wifc) (ices not want to prosecutc tho crim§nal case and both the parties arc §rayi11g for quashmcnt of rho procecdings undor Section 498—A LP.C., it would b6 just. a11d proper for this Court to acccpt. tho compromise ‘ and quash the Ciimiilai proceedings pendmg before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur under the inherent jurisdiction coofen‘ed u; s 482 Ci“.P.C, Accottiiilgly, the prayer is allowed, The proceedings of criminal case No. §44l2006 (State of CG. —VS— Geeta Gupta 8t. two otheis) pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judiciai Magistrate, Bilaspui‘ are hereby quashed. No costs. / ‘ Sdl- ‘ sunil Kumar Sinha Judge