Gt-imlnalJMisc v. Dewangan, Motilat
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
the petition is allowed and ttie criminai proceedings pending in
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 320, 482
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In the instant case, petitioner No.1 & petitioner No.4 are husband & wife. A decree of mutual divorce has been passed between the parties. Ncw they have fited a joint apptication for permission to compound the offence .'"tJ"iAf s. (2003) 4 SCC 675 .-a…
Judgment
Smt. Dewanagan, W/o Dhannalai Dewangan, aged about 47 years. Ail R/o Mamta Nagar, PS City Kotwali, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) Smt. Anju Dewangan, W/o Motilal Dewangan, aged about 25 ysars, R/c Viiiage Bodegaon, PS Nandini, Distt. Durg (C-G) RESPONDEN' State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Durg (CG) (Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Cnminai Proceciure, 1873] (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, Ji te ;';i£-K-!^SB!: fs ^-W-t-wey -f ivirs. Fouzia Mirza, counsel for petitioners No.1 to 3. ivlr. S.K. Tiwari, counsel for the compiainant/petitioner No.4. Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. All the petitioners are present in person. ORAL ORDER (24-11-2008)
The petitioners has fited this petition chaltenging the order dated 20-8-2008 passed by the Judiciai Magistrate, First Class, Durg, in Criminat Case No.1533/2004 by which the apptication for permission to compound the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. was rejected on the ground that Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. does not stipulate compounding of the offences mentioned above.
L^arned counsel for the petitioners piacing retiance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and :s^^^: 2 -^"^•SSsS^ f:: W&S another submits that though in accordance with the provlsions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. are non-compoundable In nature yet the criminal proceedings initiated for the offence punishabie under any of these sections can be quashed by exerclsing jurtediction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of the said iudgment is extracted beiow:- "14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A conteining 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 relative to sstisty unlawfut 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. 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 Hlgh Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FiR or compiaint and Section 320 of the Code does not llmit or affect the powers under Sectlon 482 of the Code. "
Thus according to the above cited decision of the Apex Court it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and th® provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Operative part
In the instant case, petitioner No.1 & petitioner No.4 are husband & wife. A decree of mutual divorce has been passed between the parties. Ncw they have fited a joint apptication for permission to compound the offence .'"tJ"iAf s. (2003) 4 SCC 675 .-a in^nLi^i /^-' ' 1 » l;rl"ttt. • —^.f !';";'':SS^&>':. categoricalty stating therein that the disputes and grievances between them have been settled without any pressure and fear. In view of the aforementioned pronouncement of ttie Apex Court and the fact petitioner No.1 & petitioner No.4 have setUed their disputes amicabiy without pressure or fear, it would be in the interest of justice to ailow the petition and quash criminai proceedings pending before Judicia! Magistrate, First Ciass, Dura. Consequently. the petition is allowed and ttie criminai proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Ctass, Durg, in Criminal Case No.1533/2004 are hereby quashed. I.A.No.1/2008 stands disposed of. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the petition is allowed and ttie criminai proceedings pending in
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 320, 482.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.