K.S.LODHA,J. - (1.) THIS misc. petition has been filed by Shantilal against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bar refusing to accord permission to compound an offence under Section 498A on the ground that the offence is not compoundable.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosector and the learned Counsel appearing for Smt. Vimla. Although some cases have been cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner whereby this Court has directed the trial court to grant permission to the parties to compound offence under sec 498A relying on a decision of their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, : 1988CriLJ121 . I am of the opinion that I need not go into this question since. In my opinion, the proceedings in this case could not have been initiated at all on the police challan as in the absence of an information from any of the persons mentioned in clause 4 of the Schedule against the offence under sec 498A. The Police could not have taken cognizance of the matter and could not have put up the challan on such cognizance. In this schedule, the offence has been made cognizable only if the information relating to the commission of the offence is given to an officer -in -charge of a Police Station by the person aggrieved by the offence or by any person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption or if there is no such relative, by any public servant belonging to such class or category as may be notified by the State Government in this behalf. A persual of the challan papers would go to show that in this case, the information had not been furnished by any of the persons mentioned in column 4 of the Schedule, but a telephonic information had been given by one Balusingh to the SHO, Jaitaran to the effect that a Bania was beating his wife; whereupon, the officer -in -charge out -post Nimaz was informed on telephone to send a constable to the spot and find out as to what the matter was and, thereupon, the post constable Kesarsingh informed the SHO, Jaitaran on phone that one Shantilal Mahajan had given beating to his wife for some dispute regarding food etc and it was on this information that the SHO reached the spot and started investigation. This clearly shows that the investigation had been started on the information given by Kesarsingh, Foot Constable, who is in no way related in Smt. Vimla. On such information, cognizance could not have been taken and further proceedings in that connection were not proper and are liable to be quashed. Further when now both the husband and wife have come to terms and there is no dispute left with them, it will also not be proper to further drag the matter and continue any ill -will between them.
(3.) FOR the reasons stated above, the petition is accepted and the proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.;