B. R. Arora, J. - (1.) THIS is miscellaneous petition under Section 482, is directed against the order dated 31. 08. 1990, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate refused to grant permission to parties to compromise the case as the offence in question is not compoundable.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on the basis of report filed by Mst. Neeru Bala wife of Rajendra Kumar, a case was registered against the petitioners under Section 406 and 498-A, IPC and after investigation, a challan was presented under Section 498 (A) IPC against the petitioners. During the pendency of the trial, a compromise was arrived at between the parties, therefore, an application was moved by Smt. Neeru Bala on August 30, 1990, before the trial Court stating therein that the matter has been compromised between the parties by the intervention of the Panchayat and therefore, she does not want to peruse the matter. It was prayed in that application that permission may be granted to compound the case. Learned Magistrate, by his order dated 31. 08. 1990, rejected the application filed by Smt. Neeru Bala on the ground that the offence under Section 498a IPC is not compoundable under section 329 Cr. P. C. , and as such the Court has no power to allow the petitioner to compound the matter. It is against this order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate that the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri M. S. Sidhu, counsel for the respondent No. 2 Neeru Bala. It is not in dispute that the matter is compromised between the husband and wife, and they have no grievance against each other. So far as power of this Court for according sanction to record compromise is concerned, that point stands concluded by the judgments of this Court in Virendra Kumar Jain Versus the State of Rajasthan and another (1) Naresh Kumar and others Versus State of Rajasthan (2) Kaliash Chandra and others Versus Smt. Vasanti (3) Ram Kishore Versus State (4) and Mahesh Chand Versus State of Rajasthan (5 ). This Court in all these cases, while placing reliance on the Supreme Court Judgment in Mahesh Chandra's case, came to the conclusion that in exceptional case, though the matter is not compoundable but the Court under the inherent power can grant permission to the parties to compromise the matter. The facts of this case are similar to the cases cited by the counsel for the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I therefore, allow the parties to compromise the matter. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar dated August 31, 1990, passed in criminal case No. 228/98 (State Versus Rajendra Kumar and others), is set aside, and the proceedings pending in the Court are hereby quashed. .;