SANJAY SHURKAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have preferred this application u./s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity the Code) for quashing of Criminal case No. 476/2002 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg for the offences punishable u/s 498-A of the IPC on the ground that respondent No. 2/complainant who is wife of petitioner No. 1 has settled their mutual disputes and has arrived to a compromise and in view of such settlement, the respondent No. 2/complainant does not intend to prosecute the criminal case any further.

(2.) Earlier an application u/s 320 of the Code was filed by the complainant and the accused persons before the trial Court vide document of Annexure P/6. However, the learned trial Court after hearing the parties rejected the same vide order dated 29.1.2005 of Annexure P/1 on the ground that offence u/s 498-A of the IPC and u/ s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable u/s 320 of the Code and the same could be quashed only u/s 482 of the Code by the High Court. Because of the above order, the present application has been filed by the accused persons arraying the complainant/ wife as respondent No. 2.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant had also filed an application u/s 125 of the Code for maintenance and as a sum of Rs. l.00.000/- has been paid by the petitioner No. 1/husband to the complainant/wife through draft towards permanent alimony, the application u/s 125 of the Code has been dismissed as withdrawn by the complaint/wife vide order dated 27.9.2002 of Annexure P/4. He further submits that the complainant and petitioner No. 1 have preferred joint petition for divorce through mutual consent u/s 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the same is pending before the learned VIIth Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Durg and therefore in the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the criminal case pending against the petitioners at the instance of respondent No. 2/ complainant should be quashed in order to facilitate the party to settle their disputes and begin their life afresh. Learned counsel for the petitioners places his reliance upon the judgment reported in delivered in the matter of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another in support of his contention.