V.S.DAVE, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 382, Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in case No. 436/87 for offence under Section 498A, IPC. Between the complainant and the accused persons there had been several litigations which included proceedings under Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, case under Section 406, IPC, proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the present case under Section 498A. Four of these proceedings were before the family Court while this one was a report to the Police in pursuance of which a charge -sheet was filed by the police in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4. Jaipur City, Jaipur, with the persuasion and intervention of social activity in the Court, all the matters pending before the Family Court were compromised and the proceedings have been terminated in terms of the mutual settlement. It was also agreed upon by the parties that these proceedings under Section 498A shall also not be persued. Consequently an application for compromise was moved before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City that the accused should be acquitted in terms of compromise entered into between the parties. The application for compromise has been refused by the learned trial Court on the ground that the offence has been made non -compoundable by the legislature and as such it is not possible for him to record the compromise. He further observed that it would in order to secure the ends of justice if such compromises are permitted because it would be sheer wastage of time. He how ever observed that it is only the High Court which permits such compromise in its inherent powers to secure the ends of justice and it is here after that the parties have approached this Court.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. It is given to understand that all the parties have amicably settled all their disputes and do not intend to carry on any further ill will. Reliance has been place by learned Counsel for the parties on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand and Anr. v. State of Rajas than and Ors. : 1988CriLJ121 where in their Lordships have observed as under: We gave our anxious consideration to the case and also the plea put forward for seeking permission to compound the offence. After examining the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence was committed, it may be proper that the trial Court shall permit them to compound the offence. The Supreme Court, directed the trial Judge to accord permission to compound the offence. This was under Section 307, IPC which was not compoundable, yet their Lordships directed the trial Court to register the compromise. I have also taken a similar view in an earlier case where I have held that in the cases like the one between husband and wife where there are several cases of matrimonial offences, if some of them are compromised, it is in the interest of justice to permit the same in the others also so that false records are not prepared. As in such cases if the parties stick to the statements recorded before the Police and repeat the same in the Court, it starts a new trail of hatredness against each other opening the flood gate for further litigation and if party does not stick to the same then they are declared hostile and are branded as false witnesses. In any eventuality, it does not advance the case of justice for which the courts are meant but brings more gulf between the parties. In these circumstances, I deem it proper to accept this application. I accordingly allow this application, and direct the trial court to accord the permission to compound the offence in terms of the application presented before him. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 16 -3 -1989. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court per messenger.;