- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
(2.) THE applicants have approached this Court with the prayer that the order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Allahabad, in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2009 in connection with the Case Crime No.42 of 1998, under Sections 498 -A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, be quashed and further that the subordinate Appellate Court be directed to decide the Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2009 in pursuance to the compromise drawn between the parties.
(3.) BY the order dated 25.10.2013, the subordinate Appellate Court has declined to give permission for compromise between the parties on the ground that the offence under Section 498 -A I.P.C. is not compoundable and in view of the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C., the permission to compromise cannot be granted. On behalf of the applicants, the case law of B.S.Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2003 AIR(SC) 1386, Manoj Sharma Vs. State,2010 4 SCC 145,, Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 10 SCC 303, Dr. Arvind Barsol and others Vs. State of M.P. and others,2008 3 SCC 880, has been relied upon and it has been attempted to impress upon the Court that in these cases, the orders have been quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties, hence, the prayer of the applicants also deserves to be allowed.;