Vk9 PETITIONERS: RESPONDEN" isc. Smt. Kirtl Sankhala, W/o Shri |tjl|^.-,:^,t* 0^^,'/i*«i-., ^^-—1ni-,-.,, .4. /?'< ividi Hsii o<3i iii\i icila, dycu ciuuui ^ i years, R/o C/o Shri Prahlad Pidiyar, '<-".:!-<i~,—.-4: ris^/" o c- rk-?<^.- ri:-^^ fxciaussui; L/ujy, r~.o. i./uiy; uiou. Durg ('CG) 2. t 32 Versus Manish Sankhala, S/o Late Shri n^^,«.:i/j«! c'/-.^!^w-?,s^ n<-?.~^ ^^nf i4- lvttiini^.i<3i oa* iF\i iciad, isayc;u ouus. years. R/o PIot No.50, Ram Shivaji .Nagar, Kili Road, Nagpur, Distt. Nagpur(Maharashtra) Saroj Sankhaia, Wd/o Late Shri Manikia! Sankhaia, aged about 66 years, R/o Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur (Maharashtra) State of Chhattisgarh, Through DlsSrict Magistrate, Durg (C.G.) (Petition untier Section 482 ofthe Code ofCrimina! Procedure, 1973) T.P.Sharma, Present: Mrs. Fouzia Mirza & Mr. Tarendra Jaln. Advocates forthe petitioners. Mr. Vinod Tekam, Panei Lawyer forthe State/respondent. 'he Detitioners are present in person. (Passed on 14/08/2008) 1. The petitioners have filed this petition chailenging the order dated 12-6- 2008 oassed bv the Judicial Masistrate, Ftrst Class, Durg, in Criminal Case No.361/2005 by which the application for permission to compound the offence punishabie under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. was rejected on the ground that Section 320 ofthe Cr.P.C. does not stipulate compoundin.g of the offences mentioned above. •:s"ll°l 1! ./ •^'fs" 2. Learned counset for the petitioners ptacing reiiance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of B.,s. JoshLandothers vs. State of Harvana and another submits that though in accordancs with the provisions ofSection 320 ofthe Code ofCriminai Procedure the offences under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3 and' 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable in nature yet the criminal proceedings initiated for the offence punishable under any of these sections can be quashed by exercising jurisdictlon under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. The relevant portlon ofthe-said judgment is extracted below:- "14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A contalning Section 498-A in the indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or bv relatives of her husband. Section ^S-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her reiative to satlsfy uniawful demands of dowry. The hyper technical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the obiect for which this provision was added. There Is every tikelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of iustice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the obiect of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code. 15. 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 Sectfon 320 of the Code does not limit 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 settiements of matrimonial /.._ .-__-_.' 1^''^-^) 4S>CC o/^ 'sW' disputes and the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal -Procedure do not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. in the instant case, marriage between petitioners No.1 & 2 was solemnized on 29-4-2004 and the said marrlage has been dlssolved by mutual decree of divorce. However, now they have fiied a joint application for permission to compound the ofjence categorically stating therein that the disputes and grievances between them have been settled without any pressure and fear. 5. In view ofthe aforementioned pronouncement ofthe Apex Court and the fact that petitloners No.1 & 2 have settled their disputes amicably without pressure or fear, it would be in the interest of justice to aliow the petition and quash criminat proceedinas pending before Judiclal Magistrate, Flrst Class, Durg. 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Judicia! Magistrate, First Class, Durg, in Criminal Case No.361/2005 are herebv quashed. Sd/- l.P. Sharma Judge aoma