Y.R. Meena, J. - (1.) As per direction of the court the petitioner and his wife Mrs. Prem Kanwar appeared is person. Mrs. Prem Kanwar has been identified by Mr. R.A. Sugandh, counsel for the petitioner. The signature of Mrs. Prem Kanwar are given in the margin of the order-sheet as well as on her statements, recorded in my presence.
(2.) Considering the nature of the offence and the view taken in several cases that though it is not compoundable case, but to save the happy married life and in the interest of complainant Mrs. Prem Kanwar, I do not find any justification to continue the proceedings, which may adversely affect the interest of complainant Prem Kanwar.
(3.) The similar view has been taken by this court in case of Smt. Jasoda & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan (1992 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 530) , the relevant para No. 4 of the judgment reads as under "It is not in dispute that the offence under section 498A and 147 IPC are not compoundable, but the dispute is between the wife and the husband and if they have amicably settled their disputes and want to live peacefully and amicably and in-laws of the complainant are ready to keep the complainant (wife_ with dignity and Honour in the family of her in-laws then the court is not expected to come in the way of settling of their disputes by way of compromise deed. It will be in the interest of justice that the parties should be allowed to compound the matter and to bridge-up the differences between them as they are close relatives. When the complainant and the accused have settled their differences and with open heart want to live together then it will be in the interest of justice that the court should come to their rescue and allow them to compound the matter as that will advance the cause of justice, for which the courts are established.";