IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47865 of 2007 AMRA KHATOON Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 04 20.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel for opposite party no.2. The petitioner, who is stated to be the sister of the husband of the opposite party no.2, is aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 8.8.2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, East Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 1713 of 2007, Trial No. 2664 of 2007 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations are that the opposite party no.2 was married with the brother of the present petitioner, who is also an accused along with other family members in May, 2005. The complaint case was instituted as soon as on 11.7.2007. The complaint alleged that the husband of the complainant demanded Rs. five lacs for purchase of a car, failing which he threatened to divorce her. He went away to Delhi for the purpose of his vocation, she was not told where he works. The complainant suspected that her in-laws were not behaving with her properly. When she went to Delhi, her husband pressed her to bring a sum of rupees five lakhs as dowry to purchase the motor car. The complaint generally made allegations against the entire family of misbehaviour with her. The petitioner is also stated to have lodged another Police - 2 - Case No. 301 of 2007 at New Delhi against the opposite party no.2 and others. A supplementary affidavit is filed on behalf of the petitioner today that steps for compromise between the parties were taken in the case pending at New Delhi and both sides have agreed to withdraw the prosecutions against each other. In pursuance thereof a compromise petition has also been filed in the present complaint case before the Court at Muzaffarpur. The compromise petition is based on their realization as adults of incompatibility making it difficult for them to live together. In a complaint case, arising out of a matrimonial dispute, when the parties to the marriage have realized their incompatibility and have decided to part ways mutually to begin their lives afresh no useful purpose shall be served by allowing the present prosecution to continue. The compromise also states of their desire not to pursue cases against each other. Counsel for opposite party no.2 is present and submits that she stands by the compromise. If the opposite party no.2 has agreed to withdraw her complaint and is not desirous to pursue the same, quite obviously there is no possibility of any evidence being made available for purposes of trial. Though the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable, considering the compromise arrived at between the parties to part ways amicably, the Supreme Court in 2003 (4) SCC 675 ( B.S. JOSHI AND OTHERS VERSUS - 3 - STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER) has held at paragraphs 13, 14 and 15, that it shall be the solemn duty of the court in a proceeding under 482 of the Cr.P.C. not to allow such prosecution to continue and that the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash such proceeding. Paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 reads as follows:- 13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a 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 erupt 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 rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There 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 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 relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical 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. - 4 - 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or F.I.R. or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. The entire proceeding in Complaint Case no. 1713 of 2007, pending before Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, East Muzaffarpur, is, therefore, quashed. The application stands allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)