The offence under section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code is compoundable with the permission of the court if the court is satisfied that it is in the interest of the parties' marital life and the welfare of the family.

Headnote:
COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCES - SECTION 498(A) INDIAN PENAL CODE - SECTION 320(9) CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Whether the offence under section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code is compoundable with the permission of the Court - Held, yes.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, a husband and wife, along with their relatives, were charged with offences under sections 498(A), 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The wife had alleged that she was ill-treated, assaulted, and threatened by her husband and his relatives due to dowry demands. After the charges were framed, the parties amicably settled their disputes and filed a joint application to compound the offences. The trial court granted permission to compound the offences under sections 323 and 506 but rejected the application for compounding the offence under section 498(A) on the ground that it was non-compoundable.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the offence under section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code is compoundable with the permission of the court. The court considered the peculiar and special circumstances of the case, including the fact that the parties had amicably settled their disputes and the wife had resumed living with her husband. The court also took into account the fact that the strained relations between the couple and the allegations under section 498(A) had a negative impact on the family and society.
Issues: Whether the offence under section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code is compoundable with the permission of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the ruling in Suresh Nathmal Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, where it was held that the court should consider the peculiar and special circumstances of the case and allow the parties to compromise the matter if it is in the interest of the parties' marital life. The court also considered the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, which aim to preserve matrimonial relations and encourage couples to live happily together.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the trial court's order rejecting the application to compound the offence under section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The court directed the trial court to grant the necessary permission to compound the offence as prayed for by the parties.

JUDGMENT - S.S. DANI, J. :---Rule returnable forthwith. Heard Shri Mandlik, advocate for the petitioners and Shri Bhapkar, A.P.P., for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

2. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 30th of December 1991 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Degloor in Criminal Case No. 114 of 1990 rejecting the application for permission to compound an offence under section 498(A), Indian Penal Code.

3. Petitioner No. 1 Radhabai is the wife of petitioner No. 3 Petitioner No. 6 is the mother in-law of the petitioner No.1. Petitioners No. 2, 4, 5 and 7 are the near relations of petitioner No. 3. After the marriage, petitioner No.1 Radhabai started residing with her husband and other petitioners. Petitioner No.1. then alleged that the petitioners No. 2 to 7 (who are accused Nos. 1 to 6 before the trial Court) ill-treated petitioner No. 1 during the period from 31-10-1989 to 19-6-1990 and they also assaulted her and threatened her during this period. It was alleged that the ill-treatment, assault and threats were there, because of the failure on the part of the parents of petitioner No. 1 to pay the dowry. Petitioner No.1 was then driven out of the house and, she ultimately on 29-7-1990 approached the Police Station Markhel, Taluka Degloor and lodged her complaint. Various offences punishable under sections 498(A), 323, 506 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code were then registered on 17-8-1990 and the accused are charge-sheeted for the alleged offence in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Degloor. The trial is still pending. During the pendency of the trial, the complainant and the six accused amicably settled the disputes and entered into a compromise. An application (Exh. 52) was, therefore, filed on 30th December, 1991, to the trial Magistrate by the complainant and the accused jointly for permission to compound the offences. Alongwith the said application, the written compromise was also filed at Exhibit 53. On hearing the Police Prosecutor for the State, the Judicial Magistrate, by an order dated 30th December, 1991, granted permission to compound the offences punishable under sections 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, but rejected the permission to compound the offence punishable under section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. It is this order of rejection of permission to compound the said offence punishable under section 498(A), Indian Penal Code that is being assailed in the present writ petition.

4. Before coming to the legal position, certain facts may be noted which are not in dispute, Petitioner No.1 is the wife of petitioner No.3 Petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 are the original accused Nos. 1 to 6, who have been charge-sheeted for the alleged offences. As per the terms of compromise Exhibit 53, all the disputes have been amicably settled and the complainant wife Radhabai, has already gone and started residing with her husband and other accused. Petitioner No.1 and her husband are leading a happy married life since about six months, and she has not received ill-treatment or troubles at the hands of the accused. Petitioner No.1 has, therefore, no grievance of any kind against any of these accused and, therefore, she filed the compromise (Exhibit 53) and prayed that the parties may be permitted to compound the offences so as to lead a happy married life even in future.

5. The Judicial Magistrate has already permitted the parties to compound the other offences namely under sections 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The trial Magistrate has rejected the permission to compound the offence punishable under section 498(A) Indian Penal Code, only on the ground that, the said offence is non compoundable even without permission of the Court.

6. On behalf of the petitioners, reliance is placed on a ruling of this Court in 1991 Mh. L.J 1106 (Suresh Nathmal Rathi v. State of Maharashtra)1. The facts involved in the said ruling are identical and at par with the facts involved in the case at hand.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis