They have been identified by their respective counsel.
Applicants have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the private complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 Smt. Rekha Dongre and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 19650/2008 pending against applicants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur.
Learned counsel for the parties submit that both the parties have settled their dispute amicably out of the Court and they have also filed compromise in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur. Since the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable, the compromise, in respect of those offences, has been rejected. However, applicants/accused have been acquitted for the offences under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
Applicant husband and respondent No. 2 wife, who are present before this Court, admit that they have resolved their dispute and they have separated by divorce. Applicant husband has given Rs. 10,50,000/- to respondent No. 2 wife and her daughter for their future maintenance.
In case of B.S Joshi v. State of Haryana-(2003) 4 SCC 675 the Apex Court observed:
“The object of introducing Chapter XX-A in IPC 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. A hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against the 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 IPC.”
In view of the above, I am satisfied that compromise between both the parties is real and genuine and without any undue influence and coercion. In view of the fact that offences under sections 498-A I.P.C and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable, the permission to compound the offence cannot be granted, but in view of the proposition laid down by the Apex Court, in the interest of parties to litigation, criminal proceedings of the case, can be quashed.
In view of the settlement between the parties, I deem it appropriate to invoke inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C and to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the applicants. Accordingly, criminal proceedings pending against the applicants No. 1 Deependra Kumar Dongre, No. 2 Kamlesh Dongre, No. 3 Smt. Rukmani Dongre and Ku. Anju Dongre in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in Criminal Case No. 19650/2008 stand quashed.
Petition disposed of.