SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) ADMITTEDLY the parties are husband and wife and they have entered into compromise. As the compromised case was not compound - able under Section 320, Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Trial Court did not attest the compromise. Against this order of the learned Trial Court that the present action for filing this miscellaneous petition has been resorted.
(2.) THIS Court in Santokh Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 RCC 618, has observed as under: 'This Court has taken a consistent view that even though the offences may not be compoundable, but this Court under its inherent powers can quash the proceedings if the ends of justice so demanded.' In Om Prakash Modi v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1994 (1) RLR 389, this Court propounded as under: 'I am always of the view that matrimonial offences are basically family problems, than being offences against the society. Adjustment and tolerance are safe ways for a happy married life. Incidents do take place between a wife and husband and the best way to resolve their dispute is to discuss and find out then mutual solution, instead of seeking of third party, sometimes hasty steps are taken in a state of excitement either by the husband c o wife when a family dispute exists but on a subsequent cool thinking the mistake is realised. In such case, the Courts are expected to administer justice in practical manner.'
(3.) AGAIN this Court in Saleem and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1997 (3) WLC 364, observed as under : 'It appears from the perusal of certified copy of the compromise petition that Smt. Ulfat Bano has received back all the dowry, gift etc. from her husband Saleem and in -laws and nothing is due at present. Saleem has divorced Smt. Ulfat Bano and it is not possible for them to reside together. In order to lead peaceful and happy life they have decided to live separately. They both are young and are looking forward to lead a new life after remarrying themselves with other persons. Joint application filed by the parties, bears signatures of Smt. Ulfat Bano and Saleem as well as of Sarafat Ali, Vasir Ahmed and Smt. Razia. In such situation when old marriage ties between Smt. Ulfat Bano and Saleem have been broken, it will be in the interest of justice to provide opportunity to the parties to forget their disastrous past and to lead a new happy life. If the parties are allowed to stick to the statements recorded before the police and repeat the same before the Trial Court, it may start a new trial of hatred against each other opening the floodgate for further litigation. To avoid that situation, the ends of justice require that the criminal proceedings should be quashed in the present case.' ;