JUDGMENT Vinod Prasad, J.
1. The three applicants Manbhawati, her husband Ram Narayan Dubey and their son Manoj Kumar have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of criminal Proceeding of criminal case No. 524 of 2003 State v. Ram Narayan and Ors. under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act pending before Court of Judicial magistrate 1st District Jaunpur. The secondary prayer is for stay of further proceeding of the aforesaid case pendent lite.
2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that Manoj Kumar Dubey applicant was married with respondent No. 2 Smt. Soni, who is the informant of crime number 524 of 2003, under Section 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Baksha District Jaunpur. The FIR (Annexure No. 1) of the said crime number was lodged by her on 10.11.2003 at 12.40 PM in respect of an incident dated 5.10.03 at 8 AM. The said FIR mentioned four persons as accused, the three applicants and the daughter of applicants No. 1 and 2 namely Kanchan. The synopsized allegations were that the informant Smt. Soni was married with Manoj Kumar Dubey son of applicants No. 1 and 2 and brother of Kanchan since last five years. The father of respondent No. 2, informant, had died when she was young. She was tortured for a motorcycle and money by the applicants after the marriage. On the date and time of incident 5.10.2003 at 8 A.M. she was poured with kerosene oil by the accused and on her hue and cry Uma Shankar Dubey and Suraj Dubey etc. reached on the spot and saved her. That day itself she was turned out of their house by the applicants. A Panchayat was convened but the attempt of compromise failed. The informant got herself medically examined in the district hospital Jaunpur. On the said allegations she had lodged the FIR mentioned before. The police after usual investigation submitted a charge sheet against the applicants No. 1 and 2 Smt. Manbhawati and Ram Narayan Dubey on 26.12.2003 under the aforementioned sections vide charge sheet number 114 of 2003 in the concerned court of the Magistrate. The Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence on 22.3.04 against the two accused applicants number 1 and 2. A subsequent charge sheet was submitted by the police against respondent No. 3 Manoj Kumar Dubey on 24.2.04 in his absentia. Meanwhile the parties the informant Smt. Soni and the charge sheeted accused Smt. Manbhawati, Ram Narayan Dubey and Manoj Kumar Dubey came to terms and entered into a compromise with the help of some respectable persons and therefore the informant Smt. Soni filed an application, annexure No. 4, before the Magistrate on 5 2.05 that the aforesaid charge sheet against the accused be quashed. The learned Magistrate- Judicial Magistrate, Ist Jaunpur vide it's order dated 21.1.2006 rejected the said application filed by Smt. Soni informant on the ground that the proceeding under Section 82, 83 Cr.P.C. for attachment is going on against the accused applicant No. 3 and but for offence under Section 323 IPC rest of the offences are not compoundable, vide annexure No. 5 to the affidavit. Hence this application by the accused persons for quashing of the aforesaid proceeding pending against them.
3. I have heard Sri P.N. Tripathi advocate on behalf of applicants and Sri T.N. Tiwari advocate on behalf of respondent No. 2, informant Smt. Soni and the learned AGA at a great length and perused the record of the case.
4. Sri Tripathi urged that since it is a case of matrimonial dispute and the parties have come to a compromise therefore no useful purpose will be served to drag both the sides to the court for the purposes of completing the formalities of the case and since the family wants to live happily together without any bickering therefore it is in the interest of justice to quash the proceeding pending against the applicants. He contended that it will be a wastage of precious time of the court to go into the niceties of trial as a ritual only when the fate of the case is decided at the very out set, The submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicants was also countenanced by Sri Tiwari, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as by the learned AGA. Sri Tripathi has also relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5890 of 2001 Harish Chandra and Ors. v. State of UP and Ors. wherein this Court has quashed the charge sheet on the ground that the parties have entered in to a compromise and are living happily. That was also a case under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Act. The aforesaid judgment is annexure No. 6 to the affidavit.
5. Cogitating over the submissions advanced by both the sides it is to be noted that the case relates to a matrimonial dispute. The interest of justice is to foster and cement the bondage of togatherness of the nucleus of the society that is the family. It will be hazardous to the society to force the parties to litigate over an issue in such matters especially when the parties have come to a compromise and they want to live a happy life. No doubt the matrimonial offences are a slur on our society and the legislature in it's wisdom thought it proper to curb the menace of such type of matrimonial disputes with conviction but this does not mean that the interest of justice, which is supreme of all the laws and for which the courts exits to be also sacrificed at the alter of technicalities. If such a course, of not permitting to compound the offences of matrimonial disputes, are strictly adhered to by the courts, then it will be a dig- service to the society for the protection of which the courts exits. It has been held by the apex court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2003 SCC (Cr) 848, that the power of the high court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not circumscribed by Section 320 Cr.P.C. It has been further held, in para 14 of the said judgment, by the apex court that-
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 dowery. The hypertechnical view would he counter productive and would act against they interest of woman and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likely- hood that the 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.
(Emphasis Supplied).
6. Thus in this view of the matter, in the present case, when the matter has been settled by the both the spouses and the relatives of the interest of justice to both the litigating parties to quash the said proceedings pending against the applicants.
7. Resultantly, this application is allowed. Criminal proceedings of Criminal case number 524 of 2003 State v. Ram Narayan and Ors. under Section 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act relating to police station Baksha District Jaunpur pending before Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur is quashed.
8. Let a copy of this order be issued to the counsel for the applicant with in two days.