Honble VERMA, J.–The present misc. petition has been filed by the husband of the non-petitioner No.2 Ganga and other petitioners who are close relatives of the petitioner. Petitioner No.1 had married to Ganga in July 1991. There was a male child born out of the wedlock. Relations between the parties got strained. The wife filed an FIR on 16.6.1995 with the Police Station Nawalgarh Distt. Jhunjhunu u/Sec. 498A, 323 and 149 IPC. The challan u/Sec. 173 Cr.P.C.. was put up before the competent Magistrate. Evidence was led. All the petitioners were convicted u/Sec. 498-A to one year each with fine of Rs. 500/-.

(2). The non-petitioner No. 1 filed a divorce petition u/Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the allegations mentioned therein, but the parties ultimately compromised the matter on 6.10.1999, copies of which compromise had been placed on record as Annexure-1 and 1A. The criminal case for which the petitioner has been convicted is under appeal before the appellate court. The parties submitted an application to the appellate court for compounding the offence on the grounds that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have started living as husband and wife and the matter had been compromised, therefore, the non-petitioner did not want to prosecute his complaint. But the court had rejected the prayer on the ground that the offence is not compoundable and, therefore, the application could be allowed. The case is now fixed for arguments before the court below. Prayer has been made in this petition for invoking the inherent powers in order to secure the ends of justice and also for the happiness of the family and further prayer has been made to set aside the order dated 23.10.1999 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in criminal appeal No. 30/99 and to allow the application of compromise and to compound the offence.

(3). The parties were called in person in this court as well. The wife had appeared in person. The husband and the wife had also filed an affidavit in this court that they have patched up their differences and they both are living together. Their affidavits along with photographs thereon, duly identified have been placed on record.

(4). For the reason that the offence u/Sec. 498A is non-compoundable, therefore, the trial court or the appellate court had no jurisdiction to compound the said offence and thus the court below was justified to pass the impugned order.

(5). In the case of Mahesh Chand and another vs. State of Rajasthan (1), the accused were ultimately convicted by the High Court u/Sec. 307 IPC. The offence was not compoundable, however, the parties had shown an intention to compound the offence, the Supreme Court in the said case had directed the trial court to permit the parties to compound. It was observed as under-

``The accused were acquitted by the trial court, but they were convicted by the High Court for the offence under section 307 IPC. This offence is not compoundable under law. The parties, however, want to treat it a special case, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. It is said and indeed not disputed that one of the accused is a lawyer practising in the lower court. There was a counter case arising out of the same transaction. It is said that this case has already been compromised. The decision of this Court is Suresh Babu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1987(2) JT 361), has been also referred to in support of the plea for permission to compound the offence.

We gave our anxious consideration to the case and also the plea put forward for seeking permission to compound the offence. After examining the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence was committed, it may be proper that the trial court shall permit them to compound the offence.

We, therefore, direct the trial Judge to accord permission to compound the offence, after giving an opportunity to the parties and after being satisfied with the compromise agreed upon. The connected papers filed in this co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document