The main legal point established in the judgment is that non-compoundable offenses can be quashed if there is a genuine compromise between the parties, especially in cases of matrimonial discord, and the court has the power to reduce the sentence based on the settlement between the parties.

JUDGMENT

S K Awasthi, J. - Applicant has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of 'the code' being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20/11/2017 passed in Cri. Appeal No.236/2015, by Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh, District-Rajgarh, whereby, Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal by affirming the conviction against applicant Manoj for offence under Section 498-A of IPC, 1860 and reduced the sentence from two years to one year R.I. by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.2,000/- passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsinghgarh, District-Rajgarh, in Criminal case No.391/2014, vide order dated 10/07/2015.

2. Facts leading to filing of this revision application are that respondent No.2/ complainant lodged a report at Police Station Narsinghgarh to the effect that four years back her marriage was solemnized with applicant-Manoj according to Hindu rituals and customs. After one year of their marriage the applicant and his family members were persistently making demand of cash amounting to Rs.2.00 lakhs and a four wheeler from respondent No.2/complainant. With intend to compel the respondent to bring the said demand, they used to harass her. When their demand of dowry was not satisfied, then on 19/05/2014, the applicant assaulted the respondent No.2/complainant showed the door to her, therefore, she started living in her paternal house. On the basis of which FIR bearing Crime No.197/2014 for offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 506/34 of IPC, 1860 against the applicant and other accused persons. During investigation, complainant was sent to hospital for medical examination. Accused Manoj and Rajubai were arrested. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons.

3. The trial Court after framing of charges and recording the evidence, convicted the accused persons for offence under Section 498-A of IPC, 1860, sentenced each of them to undergo 2 years R.I with a fine of Rs.500/- each and usual default stipulation. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, accused persons filed Cr.A. No.236/2015 before the Court of Sessions, which was partly allowed by acquitting the accused persons Chandar Dhangi and Rajubai, (father and mother of the applicant, respectively) for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, 1860 whereas the conviction against applicant Manoj for offence under Section 498-A of IPC, 1860 was maintained and the sentence was reduced from two years to one year R.I. and the fine amount was enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.2,000/-, hence the present revision.

4. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that during the pendency of this revision petition, the complainant-Kantabai and the applicant have jointly filed application bearing I.A. Nos. 4914/2019 and 4915/2019 under Sections 320 and 320(2) of Cr.P.C respectively, stating that the dispute between the parties has been resolved and they have entered into compromise with no intention to pursue the matter further. In compliance of the order dated 19/06/2019 passed by this Court the factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court and he has submitted a report on 19/06/2019 that both the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement & coercion and thus now the respondent No.2 is not having any grievances with the applicant, hence, counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned judgments.

5. Before going into the merits of the case, in order to appreciate the findings of the Courts below, which have convicted and sentenced the applicants for the aforesaid offence, this Court has been requested by the learned counsel for the parties to record the compromise arrived at by the parties concerned and set aside conviction and sentence based on compromise. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to consider as to whether after conviction and sentence of an accused person, this Court by exercising its jurisdiction under Sectio