I. M. Quddusi, J.
1. This application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 2179 of 2001 pending before the Court of learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/313/406/34 I.P.C..
2. The opposite party No. 2 is the wife of the petitioner No. 1. Both of them filed an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of mutual divorce before the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack which was registered as Civil Proceeding No. 505 of 2004. In that petition one of the conditions as mentioned in paragraph-10 thereof is that it is further decided that a Demand Draft of Rs. 1,75,000.00 in the name of the wife will be deposited in the Family Court in that case by the husband. Thereafter a date will be fixed for consideration of the application for decree of mutual divorce and in the meantime both the parties will take appropriate steps for closure in G.R. Case No. 2179 of 2001.
3. This Court had issued notice to the wife (O.P. No. 2) and Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel has put in appearance on her behalf who has made statement at the Bar that opposite party No. 2 also wants to get rid of litigations between the husband (petitioner No. 1) and wife (opposite party No. 2) and, therefore, according to the conditions made in the divorce petition, the proceedings pending in G.R. Case No. 2179 of 2001 before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar is quashed.
4. Both the learned counsel, i.e., for the husband and for the wife relied upon the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ravinder Krishan and Ors. v. Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and Ors. 1997 Crl.L.J. 9 in which relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble apex Court in the cases of Y. Suresh Babu v. State of A.P., JT 1987(2) SC 361 and Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 2111 it has been observed that all matrimonial disputes including those contained in the First Information Report in question have been amicably settled between petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 and their marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Once the parties have settled their disputes and differences, it would be an exercise in futility to file the challan in the Court and to proceed with the trial. Further, it has been observed by the High Court that looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and larger interest of justice it is just and proper, if the parties are not dragged to the Court to face a trial in a criminal charge which has lost its objective.
5. In the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 1386, the apex Court has observed :
'The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.
The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and Ors. (2003) 3 SCC 693) 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 the matrimonial skirmishes suddenly extend 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 rapprochment are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons 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 take years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their 'young' days in chasing their 'cases' in different Courts.
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 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 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 Indian Penal Code.'
6. The instant case is also similar to that one and, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that since both the parties are desiring that they should get rid of the case, and are living separately and happily in the interest of justice, the parties should not be compelled and dragged to the Court to face the trial or to appear as a witness.
7. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, according to the conditions made in the divorce petition, the proceedings pending in G.R. Case No. 2179 of 2001 pending before the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar against the petitioner is quashed.
The Criminal Miscellaneous case is disposed of accordingly.