Courts can exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings when matrimonial disputes have been resolved, even if the offenses are non-compoundable, in line with the objectives of preventing torture to women and promoting dispute settlement.

The entire criminal proceeding of Sector IV P.S. case no. 107 of 2010 (G.R. No. 1093 of 2010) including the order dated 15.2.2011 under which cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the parties have resolved their matrimonial dispute.

2. Mr. S. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that after the case was instituted, good sense prevailed upon the parties and thereby they resolved their matrimonial dispute and as per the terms of the compromise, when a petition for mutual divorce was filed before the competent court, decree for divorce was granted and that in this case also a joint compromise petition has been filed and therefore, in view of the decision rendered in a case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another [(2003) 4 SCC 675] and also in a case of Shiji @ Pappu and others vs.Radhika and another [(2011) 4 J.L.J.R (SC) 421] entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 admits that the parties have got their matrimonial dispute resolved.

4. It be stated that the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable in terms of the provision as contained in Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but there would be no bar of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for this court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the entire criminal proceeding for the ends of justice particularly when matrimonial dispute has been settled.

5. In this regard, case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another [(2003)4 SCC 675] be referred to wherein it has been observed as hereunder.

“There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code 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. The hyper technical view would be counterproductive and would act against 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 needs of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code.”

6. Similar view has also been propounded in a case of Shiji @ Pappu and others vs.Radhika and another [(2011) 4 J.L.J.R (SC) 421].

7. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the petitioner to face rigor of the trial.

8. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding of Sector IV P.S case no.107 of 2010 (G.R.No.1093 of 2010) including the order taking cognizance is hereby quashed.

9. In the result, this application stands allowed.

Application allowed.