GHANSHYAM SAINI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present misc. petition has been filed by the husband of the non-petitioner No. 2 Ganga and other petitioners who are close relatives of the petitioner. Petitioner No. 1 had married to Ganga in July 1991. THEre was a male child born out of the wedlock. Relations between the parties got strained. THE wife filed an FIR on 16. 6. 1995 with the Police Station Nawalgarh Distt. Jhunjhunu u/sec. 498a, 323 and 149 IPC. THE challan u/sec. 173 Cr. P. C. . was put up before the competent Magistrate. Evidence was led. All the petitioners were convicted u/sec. 498-A to one year each with fine of Rs. 500/ -.

(2.) THE non-petitioner No. 1 filed a divorce petition u/sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the allegations mentioned therein, but the parties ultimately compromised the matter on 6. 10. 1999, copies of which compromise had been placed on record as Annexure-1 and 1a. THE criminal case for which the petitioner has been convicted is under appeal before the appellate court. THE parties submitted an application to the appellate court for compounding the offence on the grounds that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have started living as husband and wife and the matter had been compromised, therefore, the non-petitioner did not want to prosecute his complaint. But the court had rejected the prayer on the ground that the offence is not compoundable and, therefore, the application could be allowed. THE case is now fixed for arguments before the court below. Prayer has been made in this petition for invoking the inherent powers in order to secure the ends of justice and also for the happiness of the family and further prayer has been made to set aside the order dated 23. 10. 1999 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in criminal appeal No. 30/99 and to allow the application of compromise and to compound the offence.

(3.) YET in another case Sultan and Anr. vs. State & Anr. <DJG> (3) wherein in a criminal case of Section 498a, 406 IPC, the husband and wife had compromised and wanted to stay together, this court allowed the compounding the offence and had quashed the proceedings. Similar was the effect of another case of Ram Kishore vs. State of Raj.</DJG> (4) wherein it was observed as under- " I have heard learned counsel for the parties and learned public prosecutor. It is given to understand that all the parties have amicable settled all their disputes and do not intend to carry on any further ill will. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the parties on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand and another vs. State of Rajasthan and others (AIR 1988 SC 2111) wherein their Lordships have observed as under- We gave our anxious consideration to the case and also the plea put forward for seeking permission to compound the offence. After examining the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence was committed, it may be proper that the trial court shall permit them to compound the offence. The Supreme Court, directed the trial Judge to accord permission to compound the offence. This was under Sec. 307 IPC which was not compoundable, yet their Lordships directed the trial court to register the compromise. I have also taken a similar view in an earlier case, where I have held that in the cases like the one between husband and wife where there are several cases of matrimonial offences, if some of them are compromised, it is in the interest of justice to permit the same in the others also so that false records are not prepared. As in such cases if the parties stick to the statement recorded before the police and repeats the same in the Court, it starts a new trial of hatredness against each other opening the flood gate for further litigation and if party does not stick to the same then they are declared hostile and are granted as false witnesses. In any eventuality, it does not advance the case of justice for which the courts are meant but brings more gulf between the parties. In these circumstances, I deem it proper to accept this application. "