K.C. Sharma, J.- - (1.) Heard Counsel for the parties. The matrimonial dispute between the parties which resulted into criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323 Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.4 Ajmer has been settled amicably and the parties have entered into compromise. Having compromised the matter, both the parties filed an application before the trial Court and prayed that the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners be dropped. The learned Magistrate declined the request of the parties. The revision petition filed against the order of the trial Court was also dismissed.
(2.) Learned Counsel submitted that despite the fact that parties have entered into written compromise, the trial Court is proceeding ahead in the criminal case pending against the petitioners.
(3.) It is well settled that while exercising inherent jurisdiction the Court should encourage genuine settlements of the cases arising out of matrimonial disputes. While considering the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in V.S.Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana, 2003(4) SCC 675 have observed as under: "There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent 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 to her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper technical view would be counterproductive 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 XX-A of the Indian Penal Code.";