Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J
1. Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., petitioners seek quashing of proceedings in challan arising out of FIR
No.82/2014 under Sections 498-A, 109 RPC registered with Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, pending disposal in the Court of
learned Special Mobile Sub Judge (13th F.C.) Jammu, on the ground of compromise arrived at between the petitioners.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that on 25.02.2019, this Court allowed IA No.01/2019 and applicants therein were ordered to be impleaded as
petitioners in the main petition.
3. Pursuant to the direction dated 25.02.2019 passed in the main petition, Registrar Judicial has recorded the statements of petitioners, who have been
identified by their counsel Mr. Azhar Usman Khan. The said statements are placed on record, which read as under:-
Statement of Narinder Kour (petitioner no.1) , Age : 30 years ; W/o Bawa Singh R/o Village Raika Labana, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Samba A/p
H.No.135, Ekta Vihar, Gangyal, Jammu on oath today i.e. 06.03.2019
Stated that I have entered into a compromise deed executed on 17.12.2018 with petitioner nos.2 to 6 and we have amicably settled all disputes and
issues in terms of afore mentioned deed. Further, I am presently residing with petitioner no.2 to 6 at my matrimonial home happily from last six
months. In view of the aforesaid compromise deed, I pray the Hon’ble Court to quash of proceedings in challan arising out of FIR No.82/2014 u/s
498-A,109 RPC of Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu pending disposal before the Court of Learned Special Mobile Sub Judge (13th
F.C.), Jammu.
Statement of Joginder Singh (petitioner no.2) , Age : 69 years ; S/o Jamit Singh R/o H.No.135, Lane No.2, Ekta Vihar, Gangyal, Jammu on oath today
i.e. 06.03.2019
Stated that I have entered into a compromise deed executed on 17.12.2018 with petitioner no.1 namely Narinder Kour and I have amicably settled all
disputes and issues in terms of afore mentioned deed. In view of the aforesaid compromise deed, I pray the Hon’ble Court to quash of
proceedings in challan arising out of FIR No.82/2014 u/s 498-A,109 RPC of Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu pending disposal
before the Court of Learned Special Mobile Sub Judge (13th F.C.), Jammu.
Statement of Joginder Kour (petitioner no.3) , Age : 66 years ; W/o Joginder Singh R/o H.No.135, Lane No.2, Ekta Vihar, Gangyal, Jammu on oath
today i.e. 06.03.2019
Stated that I have entered into a compromise deed executed on 17.12.2018 with petitioner no.1 namely Narinder Kour and I have amicably settled all
disputes and issues in terms of afore mentioned deed. In view of the aforesaid compromise deed, I pray the Hon’ble Court to quash of
proceedings in challan arising out of FIR No.82/2014 u/s 498-A, 109 RPC of Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu pending disposal
before the Court of Learned Special Mobile Sub Judge (13th F.C.), Jammu.
Statement of Surinder Kour (petitioner no.4) , Age : 43 years ; D/o Joginder Singh R/o H.No.135, Lane No.2, Ekta Vihar, Gangyal, Jammu on oath
today i.e. 06.03.2019
Stated that I have entered into a compromise deed executed on 17.12.2018 with petitioner no.1 namely Narinder Kour and I have amicably settled all
disputes and issues in terms of afore mentioned deed. In view of the aforesaid compromise deed, I pray the Hon’ble Court to quash of
proceedings in challan arising out of FIR No.82/2014 u/s 498-A,109 RPC of Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu pending disposal
before the Court of Learned Special Mobile Sub Judge (13th F.C.), Jammu.
Statement of Ranjit Kour (petitioner no.5) , Age : 41 years ; D/o Joginder Singh R/o H.No.135, Lane No.2, Ekta Vihar, Gangyal, Jammu on oath today
i.e. 06.03.2019
Stated that I have entered into a compromise deed executed on 17.12.2018 with petitioner no.1 namely Narinder Kour and I have amicably settled all
disputes and issues in terms of afore mentioned deed. In view of the aforesaid compromise deed, I pray the Hon’ble Court to quash of
proceedings in challan arising out of FIR No.82/2014 u/s 498-A,109 RPC of Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu pending disposal
before the Court of Learned Special Mobile Sub Judge (13th F.C.), Jammu.
Statement of Paramjeet Kour (petitioner no.6) , Age : 40 years ; D/o Joginder Singh R/o H.No.135, Lane No.2, Ekta Vihar, Gangyal, Jammu on oath
today i.e. 06.03.2019
Stated that I have entered into a compromise deed executed on 17.12.2018 with petitioner no.1 namely Narinder Kour and I have amicably settled all
disputes and issues in terms of afore mentioned deed. In view of the aforesaid compromise deed, I pray the Hon’ble Court to quash of
proceedings in challan arising out of FIR No.82/2014 u/s 498-A,109 RPC of Police Station Women Cell,
Gandhi Nagar, Jammu pending disposal before the Court of Learned Special Mobile Sub Judge (13th F.C.), Jammu. Statement of Mr. Azhar Usman
Khan, Advocate for petitioners on oath today i.e. 06.03.2019
Stated that I do hereby identify the petitioners who have deposed their statements before Registrar Judicial in my presence which is true and correct
to my knowledge.
4. From bare perusal of the statements placed on record, it is evident that parties have entered into a compromise whereby they have settled their
differences.
5. Relevant extract of the compromise deed is reproduced as under:-
“Whereas feeling aggrieved of the criminal act of commission and omission on the part of the 2nd part, the party of 1st part has filed a complaint
against the party of 2nd part in a Women Cell Jammu and the said challan is pending before the learned Sub Judge (13 FC) Jammu under Section 498-
A RPC and now both the parties have amicably solved their disputes in the Baradari and entered into the present compromise deed. The party of 1st
part agrees that she will not pursue the case against the party of 2nd part.
Whereas both the parties have decided to compromise with their own free consent and without any coercion or pressure from any side or any quarter
of society.
Whereas both the parties undertake that they will not interfere or make any type of obstruction before the other party in future.
Whereas it has been mutually agreed between the parties and party of 1st part make it sure that the name of the party of 2nd part shall be withdrawn
from the above said case which is pending in the above said court and in future party of 1st part shall be bound not to initiate any criminal proceedings
against party of 2nd part in respect of the above said case in future.
Whereas this compromise deed is being binding upon all the parties to this deed and is executed by the parties out of their free will and consent. â€
6. In case titled B. S. Joshi & others Vs. State of Haryana & another reported in 2003 (0) SCC (Cri.) 848, the Apex Court has held as under:-
“The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. [(2000) 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 disputes 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. 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 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 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 XXA
of Indian Penal Code. 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. For the foregoing reasons, we set
aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal and quash the FIR above mentioned.â€
7. Having carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, and also the law relating to the continuance of criminal cases where
the complainant and the accused had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement, I am of considered opinion that future trial
is mere wastage of time of courts. As the parties have compromised, there would be no chance of conviction of any accused in the case. Offences
for which criminal prosecution has been launched are not heinous one.
8. Consequently, this petition is allowed and proceedings in challan arising out of FIR No.82/2014 under Sections 498-A, 109 RPC registered with
Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, pending disposal in the Court of learned Special Mobile Sub Judge (13th F.C.) Jammu, are quashed
in view of compromise arrived at between the petitioners.
