IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Compounding Application No. 663 of 2008 In Criminal Misc. Application No. 731 of 2007 Smt. Shanti Devi & others … Applicants Vs State of Uttarakhand & another … Opposite parties Sri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral) Heard Sri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1, Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 2. The matter relates to the matrimonial criminal dispute. Learned counsel for both the parties have stated at bar before the Court that parties have entered into compromise and according to the compromise arrived at between the parties, both the parties have agreed to withdraw all the matrimonial disputes in other courts pending between the parties. The petitioners have filed the compounding application before this court along with an affidavit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the offences be compounded in view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court case in B.S. Joshi Vs State of Haryana reported in 2003 (46) ACC 779. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi Vs State of Haryana (Supra) has made a specific observation that in matrimonial matters it is the duty of the court to encourage genuine 2 settlements of matrimonial disputes. The Court has further observed, which reads as under:- “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.” In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers u/s 482 of the Code.” 4. The view adopted in the aforesaid case B.S. Joshi Vs State of Haryana (Supra) in the later judgment reported in Nikhil Merchant Vs CBI reported in (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 858, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:- “Despite the ingredients and the factual content of an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC, the same has been made compoundable under sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. with the leave of the court. Of course, forgery has not been included as one of the 3 compoundable offences, but it is in such cases that the principle enunciated in B.S. Joshi case becomes relevant. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facts. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised.” 5. In the instant case, Section 315 of I.P.C. is non- compoundable, but keeping in view the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment cited above, I am of the view that since, it is a matrimonial dispute between the parties, therefore, the technicalities in these types of matter should be avoided. I am, of the view that the compromise arrived at between the parties should be allowed and they be permitted to settle their dispute. 6. Accordingly, I set aside the summoning order dated 22.12.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun and quashed the proceedings of Session Trial No. 66 of 2007, State Vs Alok Sharma & others, under Sections 498-A, 323, 4 506, 315 and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the court of learned Session Judge, Dehardun. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of finally. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 03.08.2009 ASWAL