The main legal point established is that under Section 320 Cr.P.C., the court has the power to quash criminal proceedings when the parties have voluntarily compromised and decided to dissolve the marriage by custom, in line with the decision in B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

1. - Petitioner Vikas and the respondent No. 2 Mamta along with her father Shri Rameshwar are present.

2. By the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of F.I.R. No. 210/2009 Police Station Sojat City, Pali for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 I.P.C. lodged by respondent No. 2 Mamta against the petitioners.

3. The petitioners seek quashing of F.I.R. on the ground that after instituting the criminal case by lodging F.I.R., the respondent No. 2 and the petitioners have compromised the matter and finally decided to dissolve the marriage solemnized between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 on 24.5.2002, as per custom. A document i.e. customary dissolution of marriage (Talaknama) has been entered into between the parties on 31.7.2009. The respondent No. 2 Mamta who is present in Court, has been identified by her counsel Mr. Dhirendra Singh. She has filed an application being Cr.Misc. Application No. 1942/2009 stating therein that in the spirit of Lok Adalat and on persuasion of the reputed members of the society and keeping in view bright future, the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 have decided to dissolve the marriage solemnized between them by custom. According to the parties, dissolution of marriage by custom is provided in their community and ultimately they have decided to dissolve the marriage by custom by entering into a document thereto. A compromise has been filed before this Court which has been verified by Deputy Registrar, Judicial. The respondent No. 2 along with her father present in Court also submits that they do not want to prosecute the petitioners and pursue the F.I.R. lodged by respondent No. 2 after having compromised the matter by dissolving the marriage solemnized between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 and also requests that F.I.R. be s .e s.o that the parties can lead their independent life. During investigation of the case, the dowry articles belonging to the respondent No. 2 have been recovered by the police from the petitioners and the parties pray that such dowry articles be also handed over to respondent No. 2 Mamta.

4. In B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the appellants sought quashing of F.I.R. due to settlement of disputes between the husband and wife, who agreed to mutual divorce and the wife supported quashing of the criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323 and 406 I.P.C. In that case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that where there are almost no chance of conviction, it would be improper to decline to exercise power of quashing the proceedings on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences. The Apex Court observed that Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Apex Court further observed that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier and that would be against the object of Section 498-A I.P.C. The Apex Court further held as under :

"The object of introducing Chapter XX-A in I.P.C. was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A 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 I.P.C."

5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (supra), in my view, when the respondent No. 2 voluntarily compromi