TARANDEEP KAUR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/complainant has filed this petition challenging order dtd. 24/2/2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur (CG) whereby the application filed by the petitioner for compounding of the offences under Sections 498-A, 506, 323 read with Sec. 34 IPC was partly allowed only with respect to offence under Sections 323, 506 and 34 IPC.

(2.) Shri Vinay Nagdev, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner got married with respondent No.2 in the year 2010. Due to some trivial dispute, petitioner lodged report to the concerned police station against the respondent-husband in the year 2020 making allegation of commission of offence under Sections 498-A, 506, 323 read with Sec. 34 IPC. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction by the investigating agency. During pendency of the criminal case before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 have entered into a settlement which made the petitioner to file an application under Sec. 320 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, specifically pleading that she has entered into compromise with respondents No. 2 and 3 with her freewill and dispute between the parties have been resolved and have sought permission to compromise the case. Except for the offence under Sec. 498-A IPC, application for other offences was allowed on the ground that the offence under Sec. 498-A IPC is non-compoundable. He submits that though the offence under Sec. 498-A IPC is not compoundable under Sec. 320 Cr.P.C., but Hon'ble the Supreme Court in its judgment has held that the offence of private nature, commercial and matrimonial relationship or family dispute can be permitted to be compounded in exercise of the jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303. He further submits that after entering into compromise, the parties are residing together happily and discharging their duties towards the family.

(3.) Shri Aditya Tiwari, learned counsel for the State submits that the offence under Sec. 498-A IPC is non compoundable. Hence, learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 under Sec. 320 Cr.P.C. However, he do not dispute the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the offence relating to matrimonial dispute, which is private in nature, can be compromised and the criminal proceedings can be quashed or set aside.