- (1.) AJAI Kumar Singh, J. The present application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been preferred on behalf of the accused for quashing the entire pro ceedings of Complaint Case No. 313 of 2006 (Smf. Shardav. Satendra and oth ers) under Sections 323, 504, 498-A, I. P. C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, District Ghaziabad and for setting aside the order dated 20-9-2006 summoning the applicants to face the 9 trial under the above mentioned offences.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicants Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 Sri Rajeev Chaddha and learned A. G A. and perused the record. Learned Counsel for the applicants contended that the proceedings related to matrimonial dispute between the applicants and opposite party No. 2 and now both the parties have arrived at a compromise and as a result of the compromise, opposite party No. 2 has resumed living with her husbaftd, applicant No. 1. The parties filed compromise before the learned Magistrate in another Case No. 142 of 2007 under Section 125, Cr. P. C. and on the basis of the mutual agreement, proceedings of that case were dropped by Addl. Civil Judge (J. D.), Hapur, Ghaziabad. It is further contended that the applicants also do not want to proceed further in the present proceedings and want that proceedings of impugned Com plaint Case No. 313 of 2006 be. also dropped in view of the law laid down by Hon'bleapex Court in the case of S. S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003 (46) ACC 779. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has held "there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the 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 hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interest 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 XXAof Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, in the present case the dispute is a matrimonial dispute in which parties have arrived at a compromise and in the interest of justice it will be proper that the couple settle down in their life and live peacefully. In my opinion, in such an eventuality there would be no chance of conviction and it will be proper to quash the entire proceedings pursuant to the Complaint Case No. 313 of 2006.
(3.) IN view of the above discussion the application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 313 of 2006 (Smt. Sharda v. Satendraand others) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A, I. PC. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, district Ghaziabad are quashed and the order dated 20-9-2006 is set aside. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Court without any delay through District Judge, Ghaziabad. .;