Offences which are not mentioned in Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be compounded.

( 1 ) THE instant revision application has arisen out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur on 27. 6. 2003 in Cr. Appeal No. 6/2001.

( 2 ) BY the judgment and order impugned, the learned Additional sessions Judge, Raiganj, dismissed the criminal appeal, preferred by the present petitioner, and upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Raiganj, on 26. 4. 1999 in G. R. No. 1280/ 88. It appears from the materials-on-record that the learned Judicial magistrate, Raiganj, convicted the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of rs. 2000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. On appeal preferred by the convict, presently the petitioner, the learned additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Raiganj, upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court whereupon the present revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE factual matrix leading to the conviction and sentence of the petitioner may briefly be narrated thus : smt. Namita Das, presently the opposite party No. 2, is the legally married wife of the present petitioner, Samar Kumar Das. After her marriage, she used to reside in her matrimonial home where her husband along with others started torturing her. Prior to marriage, the petitioner is alleged to have taken dowry in cash and other articles and subsequently after marriage the mother and brother of the opposite party No. 2 wife, paid Rs. 11,000/- in cash but inspite of that torture upon her remained unabated. Subsequently, opposite party no. 2 wife, had to lodge a written complaint with the Inspector-in-Charge, raiganj Police Station, whereupon the investigation was started and charge-sheet was submitted against the present petitioner and some of his family members.

( 4 ) AFTER full trial on evidence the learned trial Court found the present petitioner/husband guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him in the manner as indicated. As mentioned hereinbefore, the appeal preferred by the present petitioner/husband

failed.

( 5 ) IN course of hearing of the instant revision application, a petition of compromise being CRAN 155/2004 has been filed by the petitioner/husband and opposite party No. 2/wife in this Court wherein it has been averred, inter alia, that both the petitioner and his wife had settleid their disputes between themselves on 25. 11. 2003 and affirmed and affidavit to that effect before the Notary on 29,11. 03 copy of which is marked as Annexure-B to the said application.

( 6 ) IT is submitted by Mr. De, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that since the disputes between the husband and the wife had already been settled and the husband and wife have started living together, the compromise petition can be accepted and the petitioner/husband can be exonerated from the charge under Section 498a of the Indian Penal code. It has been further urged by Mr. De that though the offence under section 498a of the Indian Penal Code is non-compoundable in nature, in view of the ratio of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Another reported in AIR 2003 supreme Court 1386, permission can be given to the parties to compound the said non-compoundable offence and the order of conviction and sentence can be set aside. No argument has been advanced by Mr. De on merits of the revision application.

( 7 ) IN the case of 8. S. Joshi (supra) on page 1390 at Para 10, the hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out that in the said case the wife filed an affidavit that the First Information Report was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and imp