- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the informant complainant, who has appeared through vakalatnama. This petition has been filed against the Judgement dated 11.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Khunti, in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2007, whereby, appeal filed against the Judgement of conviction and Order of sentence dated 07.02.2007 passed against the petitioner by Shri Satya Prakash, learned S.D.J.M., Khunti in G.R. Case No. 358 of 2004 (T.R. No. 26/07), convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section-4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was affirmed by the learned appellate court below and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case has since been compromised in a proceeding u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. between the parties, wherein it has been stated that the criminal case between the parties relating to its revision was also compromised between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the compromise between the parties, the petitioner be discharged. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in B.S.Joshi and Others -vs- State of Haryana and Another, reported in (2003) 4 S.C.C. 675, wherein it has been held that in such cases like the one in hand, where the case is compromised between the parties, the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings, or FIR, or the complaint and Section 320 of the Code shall not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. Learned counsel for the informant has appeared and has accepted the compromise between the parties. In B.S.Joshi's case (supra), the Apex Court has laid down the law as follows :- "12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 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 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 hypertechnical view would be counterproductive 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 the 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."
(3.) IN view of the compromise between the parties and placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in B.S.Joshi's case (supra), the Judgement of conviction and Order of sentence dated 07.02.2007 passed against the petitioner by Shri Satya Prakash, learned S.D.J.M., Khunti in G.R. Case No. 358 of 2004 (T.R. No. 26/07), convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as also the Judgement dated 11.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Khunti, in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2007, are hereby, set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. The petitioner is also discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. This application along with the interlocutory application, are accordingly, allowed.;