- (1.) BOTH, petitioner-husband Mohammad Shami Khan and respondent-wife Smt. Gazal Haq are present in person.
(2.) THE present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 04.03.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)&Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 41/2000, by which the trial Court refused to attest the compromise arrived at between the parties observing that the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC are non-compoundable. THE petitioners also prayed that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and the respondents have submitted a compromise before the trial Court, but the trial Court vide its order impugned dated 04.03.2009 refused to attest the same on the ground that the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC are non-compoundable. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386, wherein in para Nos. 14 and 15 Honourable the Supreme Court observed as under:- 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 hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests or 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 would prevent women from settling 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 FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. Applying the ratio decided by the Honourable Supreme Court, here in the instant case the parties prayed for compounding the case as being matrimonial dispute under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and have entered into a compromise and the respondent-wife does not want to continue with her complaint, in such circumstances, it would be a futile exercise to continue with the criminal proceedings as the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others (supra), held that The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests or 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 would prevent women from settling earlier. In view of the ratio decided by the Honourable Supreme Court and in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 41/2000 pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)&Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur are hereby quashed and set aside. The criminal misc. petition stands allowed in the terms as indicated herein above. ;