DALIP SINGH,J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. In the present case, the complaint has been filed by the wife before the Court which was sent for investigation alleging that the marriage between the accused petitioner-husband and the complainant-wife took place in the month of March, 2004. It was alleged that as is customary, the complainant, by her family, was given items, as mentioned in para 2 of the complaint. It is alleged that the accused petitioner-husband as well as the other accused persons continued their persistence for the demand of dowry and as a result of the non-fulfilment of those demands which included the grant of plot at Jaipur the relation between the parties became strained. It is also alleged that as a result of the non fulfilment of the demand, the accused petitioner and other accused persons used to treat the complainant with cruelty. It has been stated that out of the wed lock a child was born to the complainant on 10.12.2004 but the said child died on or about 11.9.2005. The complainant alleged that the child died as a result of the fact that the accused petitioner as well as his family members did not provide sufficient funds for the treatment of the child though the complainant-wife and her family members tried to give the child the best possible treatment. However, in spite of these efforts, the said child died on 11.9.2005. It has then been alleged that the complainant-wife came from the house of her in-laws and started living at Malpura with her mother and other family members. It has been alleged in the complaint that on 9.7.2006 all the accused persons including the petitioner came to Malpura and again reiterated their demand for being given a plot at Jaipur as well some money and that only on those conditions and demands being met the husband would agree to take the complainant with him. It is alleged that these demands were made in the presence of Abdul Rahim, Asgar and Khurshid and other members.
(2.) As a result of the aforesaid, the complaint under Sections 498A and 406, I.P.C. was lodged by the complainant-wife.
(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner primarily contended that the accused petitioner and the complainant had entered into a compromise on 9.7.2006. The said compromise has been executed on a judicial stamp which has been duly notarized which, as per the case of the petitioner, bears the signature of the complainant and as per the terms of the compromise the complainant was given a sum of Rs. 50.000/-, all her personal belongings and other articles which were given to them during the time of the marriage were returned to the complainant. It was alleged that since the parties had compromised the matter, the present complaint is a false one.;