Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1652 (RAJ)

Sweta Saxena v. State of Rajasthan

2005-06-02

K.C.SHARMA

body2005
Judgment K.C. Sharma, J.-Heard Counsel for the parties. The matrimonial dispute between the parties which resulted into criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 406, 420 and 120-B IPC against the accused petitioners pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur City, Jaipur has been settled amicably and the parties have entered into compromise. 2. It appears from the contents of the petition that the complainant petitioner has withdrawn the application filed before the Family Court for grant of maintenance. She has also received an amount of Rs. 62,000/-as against full and final settlement. The parties have also filed an application seeking decree of divorce by mutual consent. Having compromised the matter, the complainant and the accused petitioners filed an application before the trial Court for attesting compromise, but the trial Court vide its order dated 20.05.2005 declined to attest the compromise in view of the bar created by Section 320 CrPC. It was in these circumstances that the complainant petitioner and the accused petitioners have jointly filed this petition under Section 482 CrPC. 3. It is well settled that while exercising inherent jurisdiction the Court should encourage genuine settlements of the cases arising out of matrimonial disputes. While considering the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A their lordships of the Supreme Court in V.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675 have observed as under: “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 to 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.” 4. Having gone through the contents of the petition and the documents annexed with it, I am satisfied that the parties have settled all their disputes and the complainant petitioner has now no grievance whatsoever against the accused petitioners. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code.” 4. Having gone through the contents of the petition and the documents annexed with it, I am satisfied that the parties have settled all their disputes and the complainant petitioner has now no grievance whatsoever against the accused petitioners. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered view that continuance of criminal proceedings against the accused petitioners would be an abuse of process of law. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, I allow this petition and quash the proceedings against the accused petitioners pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, No. 13, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 107/2003, State vs. Abhishek Saxena & Ors.