The court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes if it deems it expedient and in the interest of justice, especially when genuine settlements have been reached.

K.C. Sharma, J.-Heard Counsel for the parties and p rused the impugned order.

2. The marriage of petitioner No. 1 was solem ized with non-petitioner No. 2 on 02.03.2002.

After few months of their marriage, the non-petition r wife lodged a report against petiti er husban

and his parents at Mahila Thana (North) Jaipur, upo which the police after investigati submitte

charge-sheet and the trial Court framed charges for offence under Sections 323 and 498-A, IPC

against the petitioners.

3. It is stated that during pendency of trial, the parties amicably settled all heir disputes and the

husband and wife have decided to live separately. To set at rest all the disputes, husband and w

filed a petition for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court

Court diThe petitioners and non-petitioner No 2 also filed joint applicatiofAnnexure-1 before the trial

Jaipur praying therein that since parties have amicably settled their disputes and t complainant w

does not want to further prosecute the matter the offence maydbe ordered to be compounded and he

4. The petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, CrPC. for

permitting to compound the offence which is not compoundable in view of the provisions of Section

320, CrPC. In the present case, all the dispute between husband and wife stands resolv d as is

disputes amicably, they have filed a filed a divorce petition under Section 13-B of th

Marriages Ac seeking mutual divorce and have entered into a compr mise. Having settled

evident from he fact that they havejoint application before the trial C urt for compoundi g

offence 323 and 498-A, IP . As state above, the trial Court permitted the parties to compouHdindu

offence under Section 323, IPC, but eclined to accept the prayer for compounding offence under

Section 498-A, IPC. The question that falls for determination of this Court is whether in

mat imonial disputes this nd the offence under Section 498-A, IPC which is not compoundabl

under the provisio s of Section 320, CrPC and to drop the criminal proceedings pending against th

petitioners. While dealing with a case of identical nature, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in B.S.

Joshi vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, considere the ambit of the inherent powers of High

to g ant permissio to com rt should invoke inherent 227 of the Constitution of India to quash

Court under Section 482, CrPC read with Articles 226 an jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC so as

the criminal proceedings arising out of the offence under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC. While

considering the question, their Lordships relied upon the following observations in Madhavrao

Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambharijirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 (1) SCC 692:

"While exercising inherent power of quashing proceedings under Section 482, CrPC, it is for the

High Court to take into consideration any special features which appears in a particular case to

consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue.

Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no

useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may,

while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings".

5. Having noticed the above observations, their Lordships were of the view that special features in

such matrimonial are evident. It becomes the duty o the Court to encourage genuine settlements of

matrimonial disputes.

6. Then their Lordships considered the object o introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section498-A, IPC and observed as under:

"There is no doubt th t the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the

Indian Penal Code w s to prevent torture to a woman by her husban or by of her

husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husban and his

harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands