1. - This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 27.8.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2007 whereby the appellate Court refused to record compromise on an application filed under Section 320 Cr.P.C.

2. Briefly stated, the facts for the disposal of the present petition are that non-petitioner No. 2 Sumitra Aaloriya lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 498-A and 307 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After usual investigation the case was committed before the learned Court below for trial. At the time of framing of charge learned Court below discharged the accused petitioners from the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and framed charge under Sections 498-A and 324 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After trial and on hearing learned counsel for the parties the learned trial Court vide its order dated 13.4.2007 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners. Against the said order of the trial Court the petitioners preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge suspended the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners during the pendency of the appeal.

3. On 6.5.2007 during the pendency of the appeal, both the parties entered into a compromise and a written compromise was filed in the Court of the Sessions Judge under Section 320 Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the application for compounding the offence. Feeling aggrieved of the rejection of application for compounding the offence present petition under Section 482' Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceedings as the parties have compromised the matter and they do not want to pursue the matter any further.

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel that before the appellate Court an application was filed and since the application was rejected holding that offence was not compoundable but then in such matters when the parties to the litigation have amicably settled the matter, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in either maintaining the sentence or keeping the matter alive.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant did not oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. It is to be seen that the parties have arrived to a compromise, therefore, it is not necessary-to go' deep into the matter but in the facts and circumstances of the case I deem it proper to exercise inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to allow the petition to meet the ends of justice as in such matters the law which has developed on the point also supports the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. In the case of Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 260 this Court granted permission to compound the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. in exercise of its inherent powers.

8. To the same effect is the judgment in the case of Suresh Chand & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1999(2) RCC 1153 and the criminal proceedings under Section 498-A I.P.C. dropped under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court.

9. Yet in another case of Ram Swaroop v. State, 2001 Cr.L.R. (Rajasthan) 517 , the wife started living with husband and performing her conjugal duties and with their union a female child was born. The Magistrate rejected compromise entered into between the parties on the ground that the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. was not compoundable: The order of Magistrate was set aside and criminal proceedings pending against husband before the trial Court were quashed by this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

10. After having considered the submissions and the law cited before me, I deem it proper while allowing miscellaneous petition set aside the judgment of conviction passed against the accused vide its judgment and order dated 27.8.2007 and acquit the accused from the char