Inherent jurisdiction of the court should encourage genuine settlements of cases arising out of matrimonial disputes, and the continuance of proceedings should not be an abuse of the process of law.

K.C. Sharma, J.-Heard Counsel for the parties. The petitioners were tried for offence under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC and at the conclusion of trial, they were found guilty of the offence under Section 498-A and 323 IPC and were accordingly convicted and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each under Section 498-A IPC and one months simple imprisonment to each of the petitioners vide Judgment and order dated 10th December, 2003 of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bharatpur. The petitioners challenged the conviction in appeal before the Court of Sessions, which is pending decision before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Deeg District Bharatpur. The execution of sentence passed on the petitioners is under suspension.

2. After the Judgment of conviction was delivered the parties (husband and wife) have entered into a written compromise. Having entered written compromise, the parties have settled all their disputes and are living peacefully.

3. After compromise the parties moved a joint application before the Appellate Court and prayed that in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, they do not want to prosecute the case further and, therefore, the accused petitioner be acquitted of the charges in the light of compromise. The learned Appellate Court vide its order dated 112.2004 dismissed the said application on the ground of bar created by Section 320 CrPC.

4. Mr. Khandelwal, appearing for the petitioners while relying upon a decision of this Court in Govind & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, 2002 (2) WLC (Raj) 438 and that of the Apex Court in O.P. Dholakia vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2000 (1) SCC 762 strenuously contended that taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of the case at hand, permission can be granted to compound the offence at the appellate stage. In the alternative, learned Counsel submitted that proceedings pending against the petitioners in the appellate Court may be ordered to be dropped in the light of the decision of this Court in Govind & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra).

5. Learned Counsel appearing for non-petitioner wife has not controved the above position and has frankly conceded that there remains no dispute between the parties and they are living peacefully.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the above arguments and have gone through the case laws cited at the bar. It is well settled that while exercising inherent jurisdiction the Court should encourage genuine settlements of the cases arising out of matrimonial disputes. While considering the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in V.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675 have observed as under:-

"There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penala 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 to her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be conterproductive and would act against interest 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".

7. The present case also arises out of the matrimonial dispute between the parties. Undisputedly the parties have entered into a written compromise and are living peacefully. However, the question that still emerges for consideration of this Court is whether after conviction having been recorded, the offence can be ordered to be compounded and/or the criminal proceedings pending in the appellate Court can be ordered to be dropped?

8. In O.P. Dholikias case (Supra), their Lordsh