SURESH KANWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MATRIMONIAL dispute that resulted into a criminal case under Sections 498a, 494 and 120b IPC, has been ultimately settled amicably and the complainant wife did not want to continue with the criminal case. But Section 320 Cr. P. C. came in the way and learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Fetehpur Shekhawati District Sikar vide order dated November 27, 2003 declined to recognise the settlement.

(2.) IT is well settled that while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , it is the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. In B. S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others (1), their Lordships of Supreme Court indicated thus:- (Para 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 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. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interest 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. "