HIGH L‘GURT QF £HHATTISQARH AT 3ILA$PUR (Ir. M§sc. Pei-Man Na.§51 Qf ZQOQ APPLICANT$ fjumj'r Rai, Sle Vishvadev Rgi, aggd abauf 35 year-s, 2‘ Bishvadev Rah S/a‘» Lam Shri Mahipehand Rai: aged abouf '75 years, 3. Sm'rLakshm'! Rah Wk) Vishvadzv Rai, aged abauf 62 vears 4. SmtSema Rai, W!o Sumbin Raj, aged abou‘l' 3§ year‘s, AH R/a MIC-2, 435 Ghutka, Bhilai, Tahsi! & District-Burg (C.6.) VERSUS RE$PQNDENT5 1. State of Chha‘ttisgmh, Thmugh : $1'ation Hausa Officer. Mahiia Thom! burg (3.6.) SmtSondi §ai, Ex-wife 0f Sumgi‘r Rai, R/o 264/70, ispaf Nagar', Risa“, Ehiiai, Disiricf—Durg (616.) K) (APPLECATEON QN¥3EE SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 19733 (58 :Hrm’bie Mr, T.?.$harma. J.) ?riésan% z Shri §hashrmk Thakur, counsel fw- the applicants Shri Arvind Dubey, Panei iawyer for fhe STaTeirespond'enf No.1. Smith-ai'i Chandra, counsei for respondenf No.2. The agplicants and the complainam—Smféonali Raj am present in persons in fhe Court QRAL‘ QRDER (Passw ea 29’” Octsber, 29$; The appiicanfs have filed this patition for issuance of appropriaie nrder T9 quash criminal case No.1075/2003 pending befare fhe Judicial Magistrate First Classi Durg far the offence punishable under Sectians 498-A and 4$6 of 'rhe Indian Pena! Code and 5ec‘tion 4 of the Downy Prahibi‘i’ion Act i . -2_ R) Learned ceunsel appearing for the applican‘rs submifs tha‘!‘ ahhough offance is n0? cempoundabie, but in The ligh‘l’ 9f The dictum in ‘l’he wsz sf 5.5. Jashi and a‘h‘wrs vs. 395% cf Haryma and maker‘, fha praceedings befgre the court belaw be quashed. Learned cgunse! laging reliance upon The judgment of The Apex Cour? in the ma'Her 0f 3,5. Jeshi (supra) submi‘rs the? though n accordance wifh The previsions 9 5ec‘i’ion 320 of the Cede of Crimina! Pracedure, The nffence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is non-compoundabie in neTure ye‘i’ The criminai roceedin initiated fo the effence punishabie under this section con b quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedur. The relevant portion of the said Judgment is extracted belo- h r 14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter X'X-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penai Code was to prevent torture to o woman by her huand or by reiatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a View to unishing a husband and his reiatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce 'ner or her reiative to satisfy owfui demands of dowr Th hyperteahniai View would be counterproductive and wouid act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was dded. There is eery likelihood that non-exercise o inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of Justice would revent women fm ettling earlier. That i not he object p ro S s t of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code“ 15. Tn view of the above discussion, w hold th the Hh Court in exercise of s inherent powers a quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not Iimit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. .3. Thus according to the above cited decision of the Apex Court it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and the provisions of $ection 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ‘ (2003) 4scc 675 i f pgs r e e w: sb p uni y. e c a v f e at io it cn @ 4. In The instan‘r case; thz campieinan'r has filed an affidavit in which she has sgecificaHy smfed ‘tha‘r the dispufes and grievances befween them have been sawed wi‘rhou‘!’ any pressure and fear. 5. In view 9f the aforementioned pronouncement 9f fhe Apex Court and the ,aczr That fine applicants and respenden? Ne.2./compininant have set-tied their disputes amicably without pressure or fear, it wculd be in the interest “v of justice tn niiow the petition and quash the criminai pmceedings nending befgre the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. ‘ 6. Censequentiy, the petitien isvniiowed and criminal case Na.1075/2008 pending befere the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg is hereby quashed. Sd/— T. P. Sharma i Judge‘ y“.