Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.-

By way of this criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have impugned the order dated 22nd December, 2009, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nokha, District Bikaner verified the compound petition for the offences under Sections 323 5 and 354 of Indian Penal Code as they are compoundable but denied to verify the same for the offences under Sections 406 and 498A of Indian Penal Code as they are not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.

2. Skipping unnecessary details, the necessary facts for deciding the instant petition are, in nub, thus:

“That one FIR No. 225/2005 came to be filed at Police Station, Nokha, District Bikaner. After completion of investigation, the police filed police report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. against the accused persons namely Laxmi Narayan, Kishan Lal, Manoj Kumar, Pana Devi and Sarita in the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323 and 354 of Indian Penal Code on 14th October, 2005 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Nokha.

Having heard the charge arguments, the accused Manoj Kumar was indicated for the offences under Section 498A, 406, 323 and 354 of Indian Penal Code. The accused persons namely Pana Devi, Sarita and Laxmi Narayan were charged for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323 of Indian Penal Code and the charge of the offences under Sections 498A and 406 was framed against the accused Kishan Lal, who did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

During the pendency of trial, both the complainant as also the accused persons entered into a compromise and submitted a compound petition seeking permission of the Court to compound the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323 and 354 of Indian Penal Code. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Nokha having considered all the facts on record, found that the value of property involved in the offence under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code was more than 2000/- rupees and thus, the offence u/S. 406 of IPC was not compoundable. Similarly, the offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code was also not compoundable under Sec. 320 of Cr.P.C., 1973. Hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate having granted the permission to compound the offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, verified the compound petition for the offence under Ss. 323 and 354 of Indian Penal Code, but denied to verify the compromise under Section 406 and 498 A of Indian Penal Code as they are not compoundable under Sec. 320 of Cr.P.C.”

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the relevant provisions of law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that albeit the offences under Sections 498A and 406 of Indian Penal Code are not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., but the Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous cases, especially in the case of B.S. Joshi & Others vs. State of Haryana and Another reported in JT 2003(3) SC 277, has held that to encourage the genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, Section 320 of Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of the power of quashing the First Information Report. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that any hyper-technical view on the provisions of Section 498A would be counter productive and act against the interests of women and against the object for which the provision was enacted. Learned counsel further canvassed that our High Court has also quashed the criminal proceedings pending in the courts of Judicial Magistrates for the offences under Section 498A and 406 of Indian Penal Code while relying on the judgment of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana (supra). The learned counsel has cited the cases of Bhagwan Nath and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Another reported in 2009(1) Criminal Law Reporter (Rajasthan) 458; Babu Lal o vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2009(2) Criminal Law Reporter (Rajasthan) 1220; and Suresh Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2003(4) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 69