G.K.SHARMA,J. - (1.) THIS petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 1 -5 -1989 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which, the application of the non -petitioners has been rejected.
(2.) A criminal was under Section 494, 497, 498A and 120B, IPC was pending against the petitioners on the complaint of the non -petitioner Smt. Basanti. The dispute was between husband Shri Kailash Chandra (petitioner) and Smt. Basanti wife (non -petitioner). To understand the real controversy it is necessary to mention that one divorce case was pending between Kailash Chandra and Smt. Basanti. The trial Court declined to pass the decree for divorce. The matter came to this Court and on re -conciliation between the parties the matter was compromised and both husband and wife agreed to live together as married life. With this background as the criminal case was pending Smt. Basanti filed an application that the matter has been compromised between the parties and she does not want to proceed with the case. It was also mentioned in that application that since living with her husband Kailash Chandra for the last 7 -8months their relations became cordial. The learned Magistrate recorded the compromise under Section 494, IPC because this offence was a compoundable offence and acquitted all the petitioners from this charge. The offence under Section 498A was non compoundable and in the impugned order dated 1 -5 -1989 he mentioned that granting permission in an offence under Section 498A is out of his jurisdiction and on this ground he rejected the application of Smt. Basanti. The learned Magistrate has observed in the order the part -statement of Smt. Basanti has been recorded at pre -charge stage but she is not coming to Court to complete her statement. This reveals that she does not want to examine the prosecution witnesses and inspite of this observation the request for compounding the offence under Section 498A, IPC was rejected. I think that the rejection is not incorrect as the offence being non -compoundable, the learned Magistrate has no power to grant such permission. The circumstance that Smt. Basanti and her husband Kailash Chandra are residing for the last more than 7 -8 months as husband and wife. Their relations are very cordial now and they are happy with this marital life. So keeping in view all these circumstances and the fact that both the parties have compromised the matter and they are seeking permission from the Court to grant them permission to compound, the offence, I am of the opinion that even the case is non -compoundable but after examining the nature of the case, it may be proper that trial Court shall permit the parties to compound the matter. As the parties have compromised, the divorce petition is amicably settled between the parties and now they are happily residing as husband and wife, in my opinion it is a fit and genuine case in which permission to compound the case under Section 498A and 120B, IPC be granted. I am fortified in this view by the judgment of Mahesh Chandra and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1988 Supreme Court 2111. In this case the offence was under Section 307. IPC which is also non -compoundable but as the parties want to have the offence compounded and requested the Court to grant permission, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after examining the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence was committed observed that 'the trial Court shall permit the parties to compound the case'. With this observation permission was granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court even in a non -compoundable case.
(3.) SIMILARLY , in the present case the dispute was between husband and wife and after reconciliation both the parties are residing peacefully as husband and wife and their relations are very cordial so under these circumstances it is proper that the trial Court should permit the parties to compound the offence under Section 498A and 120B, IPC.;