Harbans Lal, J. - (1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 18.4.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh in Criminal Revisional No. 16/99 whereby he confirmed the order of taking cognizance dated 10.5.99 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh in Criminal Case No. 134/99.
(2.) A complaint was filed by Mst. Balvinder Kaur for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 406 I.P.C. which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the S.H.O., P.S.Anoopgarh for investigation. During the course of investigation the parties entered into a compromise. Therefore, F.R. in the case was filed in the court. Thereafter, there was some misunderstanding between the parties and the complainant filed a protest petition on 8.12.98 before the learned trial Court and examined five witnesses in support of protest petition/complaint. The Court took cognizance for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. vide impugned order dated 10.5.99 which order is under challenge before this Court. It has also been prayed that since the parties have entered into compromise out of Court and as per the compromise they have taken divorce from each other and a decree of divorce has also been passed under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 19.4.2001 and the wife Mst.Balvinder Kaur has remarried and the parties are thus living separately and peacefully. Therefore, the proceedings may be dropped keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties.
(3.) At the time of hearing, the parties appeared in persons before me. They have also expressed and verified that they have entered into a compromise. Learned counsel for the parties have also jointly submitted that in view of parties having compromised out of the Court, these proceedings may be quashed so that there may not be any more bitterness between the parties and they may live their life peacefully. However, they have candidly conceded before me that in view of the Full Bench decision in the case of Mohan Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 Cri.L.J.3193, this Court cannot directed the learned court below to compound the alleged offences which are by law non-compoundable and this Court also cannot permit compounding of non-compoundable offences but they have on the strength of the cases of (1) Govinda and another v. State of Rajasthan (2000(2) W.L.C. (Raj.) 438) ; 1999(2) RCC 1153 (Suresh Chandra & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan) ; 1998(2) RCC 90 (Smt.Urmila Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) 1998(1) RCC 484 (Amrit Lal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan) 2000(6) Supreme 383 (Barasati & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.) ; 2000(2) RLW (Raj.) 1067 (Ghanshyam Saini v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) AIR 1988 SC 2111 (Mahesh Chand & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan) prayed that the proceedings in the aforesaid case may be dropped.;