@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.@mdashThis is a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure jointly moved by the wife, mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband for quashing of FIR No. 98 dated 11-7-2002, registered under Sections 498-A/406/506 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station City, Ferozepur. The quashing of the FIR has been sought on the ground that a compromise has been effected between petitioner No. 1 and petitioners No. 2 to 4.
2. It has been averred in the petition that petitioner No. 1 Veeran Rani is the complainant on whose application, the FIR in question was registered against petitioners No. 2 to 4. It has further been averred that the parties have amicably settled the matter and, therefore, the present petition is being filed jointly for quashing of the FIR. It has also been stated that petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 4 had jointly filed a petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.
3. Counsel for the petitioner states that a decree for divorce by mutual consent has been passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur on 12-11-2005. He has furnished a photo copy of the judgment dated 12-11-2005 and the same is taken on record. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
4. Learned State counsel has no objection to the quashing of FIR in question on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The Apex Court in B.S. Joshi''s case (supra) in paras 13 to 15 has observed as under:
13. The observations made by the Court, though in a slightly different context, in G. V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad : 2000CriLJ3487 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 disputes 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 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Sections 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 hyper technical 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. This is not the object of Chapter XX-A 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 u/s 482 of the Code.
7. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 98 dated 11-7-2002, registered under Sections 498-A/406/506 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station City, Ferozepur is quashed.
