DAVE, J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the proceedings in criminal case No. 67/91 pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Petitioner No. 1 was married to non-petitioner No. 2 at Jaipur on 10. 10. 1986. After about 2 1/2 years of the marriage, the relations strained and on 30. 12. 89 non-petitioner No. 2 lodged a report against the petitioner Harpal Singh in Mahila Thana, Jaipur, which was registered as F. l. R. No. 89/89 for offences under Ss. 498a and 406 I. P. C. and a case was registered.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the investigation non-petitioner No. 2 filed an application before the Circle Officer of Mahila Thana on 14. 2. 1990 that she had filed the complaint in moment of emotions and sentiments and does not want to take further action on her report. She wrote in the application that she has received back all the belongings from her husband and they have also filed petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. Alongwith the application, she filed copy of the receipt of the goods she had received and copy of the divorce petition. Police, after satisfying itself, submitted a final report No. 5/90 on 19. 12. 1990. On 17. 12. 1990, the learned trial court issued notice on this report to the complainants which was served on 9. 2. 1991 for 15. 2. 1991. She appeared in the court, but neither filed the protest petition nor gave any statement before the learned Magistrate and returned home as she never wanted to prosecute the petitioner. She did not appear on adjourned dated i. e. 14. 10. 1991 (sic. 14. 3. 1991) and 15. 3. 1991. However, marking presence of the Public Prosecutor, the learned Magistrate passed orders for taking cognizance against which the petitioners filed revision petition which has been dismissed by Addl. Sessions Judge N. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur. In this petition the learned counsel raised two fold objections. His first grievance is that no cognizance could have been taken since the offence alleged in the complaint was in respect of doing cruelty alleged to have been committed on 21. 6. 87 and the order of cognizance has been passed on 16. 3. 1991 which is beyond the period of three years and is thus barred by limitation. Secondly, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties and then condoning the cruelty of matrimonial offence, no prosecution is required to continue, for offence under S. 498 A. I. P. C. This is evident from the conduct of Smt. Narender Kaur that she neither appeared before the trial court nor before the revisional court nor before this court even after notice clearly indicates that she does not want to persue the remedy in view of the mutual settlement of all disputes between the parties. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the facts & circumstances of the case and have perused the entire record. In fact, I am not in agreement with the view taken by the two courts below on taking cognizance in a case like the one, muchless in utter disregard of the facts which disclosed that for the last more than three years they have been living (sic. not living) together, therefore, there was no question of taking cognizance beyond the period of three years as it violates the provisions of S. 468 A (sic. "468") Besides this, when the compromise application has been filed and she did not intend to persue the case it was not proper for the court to have taken cognizance even on merits of the case. In cases like the one, the courts are expected to administer justice in practical manner and with clear mind and having consideration that law is meant to secure the ends of justice and not to harass the parties when the wife has condoned the matrimonial cruelty and has entered into the mutual settlement seeking dissolution of marriage so as to give burial to the past, it was not proper to have revived the previous ill-will which would have destroyed her future life as well. I am fortified in my view by the decision in Ram Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan (1) 386 and Gopal Lal & Ors. vs. "state of Rajasthan and State of Raj. vs. Gopal Lal & Ors. (2) In this view of the matter, the proceedings pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur are ordered to be quashed. .;