- (1.) THIS revision application is directed against the order dated 18.7.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC 1st, Dhanbad in Cr. App. No.286 of 2008 whereby he affirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed on 20.9.2008 by the then Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case no.702 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the petitioner having been convicted for an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2500.00 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this revision application, the parties got their matrimonial dispute settled. In terms of settlement a sum of Rs.4 lac had already been paid to the opposite party no.2. For payment of rest of money two bank drafts of a sum of Rs.2 lac and Rs.1.5 lac are being paid to the opposite party no.2 in presence of her counsel which the opposite party no.2 accepted. Since the parties have compromised the case, a joint compromise petition has been filed which can be accepted by this Court even if an offence under Section 498 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 vs. State of Haryana and another [2003(2) East.Cr. C 220 (SC)]. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 admits that the parties having settled their dispute have entered into a compromise. No doubt it is true that the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is non-compoundable but the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another supra) was pleased to quash the proceeding in view of the fact that the parties have arrived at settlement amicably. While doing so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: " There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relative 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. This is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code."
(3.) HERE in the instant case, the parties got their dispute settled but it has been settled after the order of conviction and sentence has been recorded against the petitioner. Still there may not be any hurdle in quashing the order of conviction and sentence for the reason that when in a case, where the offence is compoundable, the case can be disposed of on the basis of compromise even after conviction, why not compromise be accepted, even after conviction in a case of 498A when the compromise can be given effect to by the High Court by invoking power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before conviction in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above.;