- (1.)BY this petition under Section 482 of Cr. PC the petitioners request to quash the proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 110/01 before the ASJ, Raisen arising out of judgment dated 5-12-01 passed by Additional CJM, Bareli in Criminal Case No. 287/96.
(2.)PETITIONER K. M. Patil and Mrs. Meera Patil were married on 10-2-85. They were posted in their employment at Badi Bareli (Raisen) and Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) respectively. Despite best efforts petitioner could not be posted at one place and as a result, marriage between petitioners had faced rough face and suffered from incompatibility. The relations got strained. Petitioner K. M. Patil filed C. S. No. 20-A/96 before II ADJ, Rajnandgaon for judicial separation. In the meanwhile petitioner Mrs. Meera Patil filed a report in the year 1995 at Police Station, Badi making allegations of dowry demand against the petitioner K. M. Patil while her stay with him in the year 1987-88. On the basis, the Police completing the investigation, charge-sheeted the petitioner K. M. Patil under Section 498-A of IPC. Cr. Case No. 287/96 accordingly was registered in the Court of ACJM, Bareli. Concluding the trial, the ACJM vide judgment dated 5-12-01 recording conviction of petitioner K. M. Patil under Section 498-A, IPC sentenced him to undergo R. I. for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs. 3000/- in default to suffer further imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Being aggrieved, the petitioner K. M. Patil preferred Cr. Appeal No. 110/01 before the 3rd ASJ, Raisen. The petitioner K. M. Patil filed C. S. No. 77-A/01 before the 1st ADJ, Rajnandgaon for dissolution of marriage with petitioner Mrs. Meera Patil. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit for divorce, petitioners substantially patched up their differences, and their relations were improved and harmonized to a great extent. In order to settle their lives respectively the petitioners decided to obtain decree for divorce pursuant to mutual consent and as a result decree of divorce was passed on 30-7-03. Due to complete normalization of lives of petitioners they compromised their dispute and differences and entered into a compromise recorded on 23-4-03. Accordingly, an application under Section 320 (2), Cr. PC was filed before the 3rd ASJ, Raisen in Cr. Appeal No. 110/01. The Court below without considering the facts and circumstances of the case passed a mechanical order rejecting the application aforesaid on sole ground that offence under Section 498-A, IPC is non compoundable. Therefore, petitioners' request to quash and set aside the order dated 15-9-03 and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 287/96 resulting into conviction of petitioner K. M. Patil.
(3.)IN B. S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 1386, it has been held by the Supreme Court as under:-
"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 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 or dowry. The hyper technical view would be counter productive 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 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 Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. "