Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 222 (CHH)

TARUN KUMAR v. STATE OF C. G.

2012-08-30

T.P.SHARMA

body2012
ORDER 1. The applicant has filed this revision against the judgment dated 29.6.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in Cr. A. No. 2/99 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.1.1999 passed in Cri. Case No. 1252/92 whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari convicted the applicant under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. l,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi & others Vs. State of Haryana & others (2003) 4 SCC 675 submits that though in accordance with the provisions of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. the offence under Section 498A of the IPC are non-compoundable in nature yet the conviction and sentence imposed under this section can be set aside by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted below:- "14. 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 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relative 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 ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” 3. Thus, according to the above cited decision of the Supreme Court, it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and the provisions of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. do not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 4. Thus, according to the above cited decision of the Supreme Court, it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and the provisions of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. do not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 4. In the instant case, the applicant and the complainant have jointly filed an application before this Court for compromise. The said application was examined and verified by the Registry. As per report of the Registry, both the parties have voluntarily entered into the compromise without any fear or pressure. Now there is no chance of amicable settlement between the applicant & the complainant for living together and they are, residing separately. 5. In view of the aforementioned pronouncement of the Supreme Court and the fact that the applicant and the complainant have settled their disputes amicably without any pressure or fear, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the petition and set aside the conviction of the applicant under Section 498A of IPC and sentence awarded under that section. 6. Accordingly, the application dated 30.8.2012 is allowed and consequent to compromise, the revision is allowed. Conviction of the applicant under Section 498-A of IPC and sentences imposed there under are hereby set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the said charge. Application Allowed.