Cr.M.P. No.167/2006 B^StfelSiS Satish Kiimar-Rahii, . Aged about 40 years, S./o Shri Uined Ram Sahu, Rcsident of Dipak-Nagar, Duri District - Durg (C.G.i 1. State of Chhattisgarh , Thiough P.S. City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 2. Smt. Mamta Sahii, Resident of N-13, Section - 2, Avanti Vihar, Raipur, Distfict. Raipur(C.G.) 3. Surenilra Sahii, Aged about 48 years, S./o Shli Umed Ram Sah.u, Resident of Dipak Nagar, Diirg; nist.net - Diirg (C.G.) 4. Nii'mala Sahu Wife of Uttam Ram Sahii, Aged about 50 years, Resident of Dipak Nagar, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 5. .Smt. Sagun Sahu, Wtfe of Kanliaiya Sahu, Aged about 42 years, Resident of Kota, Rauipur(C.G.) 6. Snit. Neelima Sabu, Wife of Surendra Saliu, Aged about 41 years, Resident ofDipals Nagar, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) 7. Smf. Hirarievi Salm, 'A'ife of Umed Ram Saliu, Aged about 48 years, Resident of Dipab Nagar, Durg, Distiict - Durg (C.G.) Cr.M.P. No.l -2-- Sliri Kishore Bhaduri aad Shri Ashok Soni, Advocates along with tlie appUcaiit. S'iiri G.K. Beriwal, Dy. Advocate Gene.ral for the State/respondent No.l. S3lri Y. C. Sbaniia, Advocate along witli respondeiit No. 2 - Maiuta Sahu. " Respondent. No.4 by S1in Mahendra Duoey, Advocate. Reinaining respondents aw present. in person. Identification ofpai-ties done hy coiinsel in 01'rier sheet. ORAL ORDER »J. 1. Refening to order dated 26/7/2006 (Aunex-ure A-l.) passed in Cri-aimal C^se No.203/'2006 by t'he Judicial Magistrate Fh-st Class, Dhaintari, lea.ined coun.set for the parties s-ubirut that a coinproinise petition und.er Section 320 ofd'.P.C. was filed oy thr. coiTlpiainant and accused persons for compo~iindii3g tlie said Crimuial Case, which was fi1ed -under Section 498-A read. wifl-f' Section 34 of IPC, but; sroce flie offence pnnishahie under Section 498-A of IPC is not conipoiindable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., the teai'ned. trial &i'urt had disniissed the said appUcatJon and 1iacl fixed flip- case for proaecution evidencR. 2. The brirf facts are that respondeQt No.2 - Sm.t. Mam.ta Sahu was 'manied to the applicant in t.he year 1991, On certain dispute, a i-eport was lodged. by her and a CrirniriaT Case under Section 498-A/34 of IPC was regjstered agBi-nst. t1ie acciised persons aud u.ltiinately, a charge slieet was fi1ef1. DiiiTng tne pendency of the crimin.al case, a pBtition for divorce was filed before the coTnpeteiit Court, in which, 1~ioth tl'ie parties subsequently fited aii application under Rection 13-B of t.'ne Hindu Mamage Act seebiiig rSivorce 011 ttae groirnd of iniltual consent. Certaiu conditioiis 'we.re agreed upCin for praying for Cr, -3 ...-.^fleggia diyorce on unitiial consent, accoi-ding t.o whicb, the wifc had to leceive possession ofa Fiat Uno Car and she had also to recewe a suin of Rs.4 1akhs as the fina1 EiiTtonnt of setUenie.nt towards her inau'ttenance etc. All these are coiitairie.fi in para 6 and 7 o'r the judgn-ient. passed by tlie Faiiii'Sy Court, Diii-g in Civil Riiit No.91- A./-2005. 3. Leam.ed couiisel for the applicant s-iibniits t'liat on sTich settleinent, the aforesaid judgroent and decree was passed and ultimately, the mamage between tbe parties was dissolved on their lautiial consent and tiie partiea were direc'tert to compiy with the conditions of Tnutiial divorce agreed netween the'ili. l^araed coiuisel suhnnts that in lieii of the aforesaid judgment; possession of the Fiat Uno car has already 1ieen delivered fo respOD.den.t No.2 and a suni of Rs.2 lafchs has a1so been given to her by tlie applicant. He also siriiBtits t.hat the petition 1ias been ffled for lyiasliment of the proceedmgs on n-iany groiinds, but presently botb. the parties are .iraying th.at simply, iri t1.ie facts and circuins.tarices of.flus case, their conipromise fited before tbe » trial Court inay be alloweil and the proceedings or tli.e criiiLioal case be quasbed on the ground of con-ipounding of tlic offence befaveen tlie parties alone. 4. Respondp.nt. No.2, who is pre.RRnt. in this Conrt also adniits faat. she harl receTOed the possession ofFiat. 5Jno car ajid she has also received Rs.2 lakhs in licLi ofthe said order ani-1 today, she is receiving a cheque bearing No.598235 for Rs. 2 lakhs drawn. on ICICI Bank Bhilai Branch and she is giving a separate receipt thereof to tbe appUcant ~ i. T-et a. receipt to tllis e'JTe.ct be giwen hy faer and photocopy of the receipt. as well as cheqiie be also produced before this Coiirt, whi'ch shanfonri part ofthe recorrl ofthe pefition. 6. { have enqirired froni respondent No.2 as to wfaetfaer she is willing to compound the oflence as per the condifions rflentioncil Cr.M.P. No.167/2006 -4-- .,;^..-l-^^^^ ^ii^^'-^'^^SI ^rf^^^^'f'^t iu the divorce orier. On such enquuy, she a.dmits hefore m.e that. on paynient of the balajice aiuOunt, which she is receiving foday, sfae is willmg to con-ipound the offence aild if the pmceediugs of the Crim.ina1. Case is quashed in 1ieu of compouru'ling of tbe offenc.e, she has no object-ioa. 7. The jurisdiction of the High Court uader Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding qiiashineDt of a prot''Reding u/s 498-A ?.P.0. ia view of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is no longer res integra. It. has been obsei'ved by the Apex Court in the oiatter of B.S. 's.- C.G.L.J. 35 that tliere is no doiibt tjiat the objecf ofuitroducmg Chapter XX- A contaiiung section 498-A in the Indian Penat Code was to prevent tortui-e t.o awoinan by her liusliand or hy relatjves, of her husband. Sectjon 498-A was added with a view to pu-nishing a busband aud his relatives who hanass or tortiirR tlie wile to coerce her or her rclatives to satisfv iin!awfii1 deniaiirls of d.owiy. The hyper-technical view •woiilci be connter-prorluctive and would act agai.nst interests pf women and against the object for wliich. this provision wa.s added. There is evei'y 5ike1i1'iood Piiat non- exercise of uiherent power to quash tlie proceedings to rneet the ends ofjustice woilld prevent women froni settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter - XX-A of the Indian Penaj Code.' Obsefvmg t1ns, ihe Apex Court laid down tn.at. snch proceedings can be quashed by flie High Court iinder Section 482 Cr.P.C. m its inherent jurisdiction. After hearing the pai'ties and aftcr being satisfied t3~tat after ttie divorce, inutuany takeu by both the parties,ivhen the parties aave ente.red into a coiiiproiTiise anr5 aiv praying for qtiaslring of flie proceedmgs iinder Section -49S-A ?PC, it woiilrl bf° just and piTQper for t.his Coiirt to accept fheir comproniise and to quassh the proceedings -irnder the inberentjiirisdiction. 9. Accoi-ilingty, the prayer is allowed. ::fa.o;ihyEa -5- 10. Ignoriag the grounds pleaded in Criinmal Misce11aneoiis Petitiou, the proceedmgs of Criminal Case is berehy (piashed on the o'aly gro-und of conipromise cntei~ed uito lietween the parties for wliica aii application was ffled by fliem hefoi'e t3ie trial court aiid it was riisnrissRd tiy the said coiirt. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 203/2006 pRnd-ing in the Cx3Urt of Jiidicial pstrate Fi'rst Class, Dhajntan a.re hereby qiiastied. - ——-- Sd/- SunUKumar Sinha fc^fes^^^i;^^