JUDGMENT
P.K. Bhasin, J.
1. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of FIR No. 288/2005 under Sections 498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code (‘I.P.C.’ in short), registered at Police Station Civil Lines on 08-09-2005.
2. It is alleged in the present petition that the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized as per Hindu rituals and customs on 25.09.1998. Petitioner No. 2 is mother-in-law and petitioners No. 3 and 4 are sisters-in-law of respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 5 is the brother-in-law of petitioner No. 1. Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint with the police on 08.09.2005. It was alleged by the complainant respondent No. 2 herein that despite having spent huge amount on the wedding, the parents of respondent No. 2 could not satisfy the insatiable demands of the petitioners and during her stay at the matrimonial house she was consistently harassed and tortured by the petitioners for bringing less dowry and not fulfillling their expectations.
3. In pursuance to the above said registration of FIR at the behest of respondent No. 2, the petitioners moved the application for seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. During the pendency of the application, the parties appeared before the Mediation Cell, Tis Hazari, Delhi and during the course of mediation proceedings, complainant and the petitioners settled all their disputes. In view of the settlement, application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was allowed.
4. Since the offences for which the petitioners were being prosecuted were not compoundable as per the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioners. Notice of the petition was sent to the State and respondent No. 2-complainant. Respondent No. 2 appeared in person along with a counsel on 06-09-2007 before this Court and affirmed that the disputes had been amicably resolved and so she was no more interested in pursuing her complaint against any of the petitioners. She supported the prayer of the petitioners for quashing of the FIR.
5. In support of the prayer made in the petition for quashing of the FIR, learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. . That was also a case under Sections 498A/323/406 IPC and during the pendency of criminal proceedings the disputes between the parties were settled. Petition was filed in the High Court for quashing of the FIR but that petition was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC being non-compoundable the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be invoked to bypass the mandatory provision of Section 320 Cr.P.C. While reversing the decision of the High Court the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that ‘if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing.’ It was also observed that in case of matrimonial disputes it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. In paras No. 13 and 14 of the judgment it was observed as under:
13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and Ors. are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reason which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their ‘young’ days in chasing their ‘cases’ in different courts.
14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the 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 counter productive 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 XXA of Indian Penal Code.
After observing so the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the FIR in view of the fact that the matrimonial dispute between the parties had been amicably resolved.
6. The complainant in the present case, as noticed already, has herself admitted before this Court that because of the settlement arrived at between the parties, she has no grievances against the petitioners and is no more interested in the prosecution of the petitioners pursuant to the FIR got registered by her. Thus, in view of the afore-quoted views of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi’s case (supra) the FIR registered at the instance of respondent No. 2-complainant against the petitioners deserves to be quashed since the parties have amicably resolved their disputes. It would secure the ends of justice if the FIR in question is quashed.
7. This petition is accordingly allowed and consequently FIR No. 288/2005 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines is hereby quashed.