Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) This misc. petition as per provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred on behalf of petitioners Rafeeq and Smt. Anjum to get an offence punishable under Section 498A Indian Penal Code either to get compounded or to quash the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Appeal No. 32/2009 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur.
(2.) The facts of the case are that at the instance of respondent No. 2 Smt. Shabana a case was registered and after necessary investigation the petitioners were charge sheeted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 324 Indian Penal Code. The conviction for the charges aforesaid was recorded vide judgment dated 6.7.2009. The appeal then was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur and that was transferred for its adjudication to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur. The appellants and complainant Smt. Shabana during the course of appeal arrived at an agreement and a compromise was filed before the appellate Court on 24.6.2011 as per provisions of Section 320(1)(2) Cr.P.C. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after verifying the compromise compounded the offence pertaining to Section 324 Indian Penal Code and acquitted the petitioners for that. However, the provisions of Section 498A Indian Penal Code being not compoundable the appeal was kept pending and i.e. yet under consideration.
(3.) The submission of the petitioners is that the parties have arrived at an agreement and, therefore, looking to the interest of justice a necessary direction must be issued to compound even the offence punishable under Section 498A Indian Penal Code or to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated on basis of the complaint submitted by respondent Smt. Shabana. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in 2003 (42) Crimes 284 (SC) , wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash criminal proceedings and also permit to compound an offence i.e. not otherwise compoundable. The relevant portion of the judgment referred above reads as under: "13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 693 , are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the Courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent' times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their 'young' days in chasing their cases in different Courts. 14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A 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 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 setting earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA 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 F.I.R. or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.";