- (1.) BY the Court - Heard the parties. An F.I.R was lodged by the petitioner's wife -opposite party No. 2 alleging therein that the petitioner being husband committed offence under Section 498 -A of Indian Penal Code. When the petitioner was put on trial, he was convicted under Section 498 -A of Indian Penal Cope. The order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the Appellate Court vide Cr. Appeal No. 57 of 2007, which was dismissed. Consequently, the order of conviction and sentence was affirmed by the Appellate Court. That order has been challenged in this revision application.
(2.) LEARNED counsel further submits that during pendency of this revision application, both, petitioner as well as opposite party No.2, with the help of well -wishers got their disputes settled and thereby they have compromised the case and a joint compromise petition has been filed which can be accepted by this Court even if the offence under Section 498 -A of Indian Penal Code is non -compoundable in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003 (2) East Cr C 220 (SC) : (2003) 4 SCC 675. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that since the petitioner has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court, this Court will confine itself to see the legality and propriety of the order and will not go into the matter, which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner.
(3.) NO -doubt, it is true that the offence under Section 498 -A of Indian Penal Code is non -compoundable but the Honble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others (supra) was pleased to quash the proceeding in view of the fact that the parties have arrived at settlement amicably. While doing so. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under "There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX -A containing Section 498 -A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498 -A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper -technical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non -exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of chapter XX -A of the Indian Penal Code." ;