VERMA, J. - (1.) THE present misc. petition has been filed by the husband of the non-petitioner No. 2 Ganga and other petitioners who are close relatives of the petitioner. Petitioner No. 1 had married to Ganga in July 1991. THEre was a male child born out of the wedlock. Relations between the parties got strained. THE wife filed an FIR on 16. 6. 1995 with the Police Station Nawalgarh Distt. Jhunjhunu u/sec. 498a, 323 and 149 IPC. THE challan u/sec. 173 Cr. P. C. . was put up before the competent Magistrate. Evidence was led. All the petitioners were convicted u/sec. 498-A to one year each with fine of Rs. 500/ -.
(2.) THE non-petitioner No. 1 filed a divorce petition u/sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the allegations mentioned therein, but the parties ultimately compromised the matter on 6. 10. 1999, copies of which compromise had been placed on record as Annexure-1 and 1a. THE criminal case for which the petitioner has been convicted is under appeal before the appellate court. THE parties submitted an application to the appellate court for compounding the offence on the grounds that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have started living as husband and wife and the matter had been compromised, therefore, the non-petitioner did not want to prosecute his complaint. But the court had rejected the prayer on the ground that the offence is not compoundable and, therefore, the application could be allowed. THE case is now fixed for arguments before the court below. Prayer has been made in this petition for invoking the inherent powers in order to secure the ends of justice and also for the happiness of the family and further prayer has been made to set aside the order dated 23. 10. 1999 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in criminal appeal No. 30/99 and to allow the application of compromise and to compound the offence. The parties were called in person in this court as well. The wife had appeared in person. The husband and the wife had also filed an affidavit in this court that they have patched up their differences and they both are living together. Their affidavits along with photographs thereon, duly identified have been placed on record. For the reason that the offence u/sec. 498a is non-compoundable, therefore, the trial court or the appellate court had no jurisdiction to compound the said offence and thus the court below was justified to pass the impugned order. In the case of Mahesh Chand and another vs. State of Rajasthan (1), the accused were ultimately convicted by the High Court u/sec. 307 IPC. The offence was not compoundable, however, the parties had shown an intention to compound the offence, the Supreme Court in the said case had directed the trial court to permit the parties to compound. It was observed as under- " The accused were acquitted by the trial court, but they were convicted by the High Court for the offence under section 307 IPC. This offence is not compoundable under law. The parties, however, want to treat it a special case, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. It is said and indeed not disputed that one of the accused is a lawyer practising in the lower court. There was a counter case arising out of the same transaction. It is said that this case has already been compromised. The decision of this Court is Suresh Babu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1987 (2) JT 361), has been also referred to in support of the plea for permission to compound the offence. 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. We, therefore, direct the trial Judge to accord permission to compound the offence, after giving an opportunity to the parties and after being satisfied with the compromise agreed upon. The connected papers filed in this connection before this Court be transmitted to the trial court for the purpose. The parties, if they want may file additional documents. " Similarly, in a case reported in Saleem and others vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (2) in a dispute between husband and wife, on the application moved u/s 482 CR. PC. and for the reasons mentioned therein, the criminal proceedings were quashed and the matter between the parties was allowed to be compromised.
(3.) YET in another case Sultan and Anr. vs. State & Anr. (3) wherein in a criminal case of Section 498a, 406 IPC, the husband and wife had compromised and wanted to stay together, this court allowed the compounding the offence and had quashed the proceedings. Similar was the effect of another case of Ram Kishore vs. State of Raj. (4) wherein it was observed as under- " I have heard learned counsel for the parties and learned public prosecutor. It is given to understand that all the parties have amicable settled all their disputes and do not intend to carry on any further ill will. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the parties on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand and another vs. State of Rajasthan and others (AIR 1988 SC 2111) wherein 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 Sec. 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 statement recorded before the police and repeats the same in the Court, it starts a new trial 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 granted 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. " For the reasons mentioned above, in my opinion, it is a fit case where the husband and wife are now staying together and want that the criminal case moved on behalf of one party against the other, but now living under the same roof be allowed to be compounded. I, therefore, set aside the order of the appellate court with a direction to the appellate court to decide the appeal as having been compounded and pass necessary orders. Thus misc. petition is disposed off. . ;