MOHD. KAFEEL Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicants, Mr. Manoj Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that marriage of Mrs. Kishwar Jahan elder daughter of opposite party No. 2 was solemnized with applicant No. 1, Mohd Kafeel and marriage of Mrs. Akleema, younger daughter of opposite party No. 2 was solemnized with applicant No. 2, Shah Alam in the year 2004, but on account of acrimonious relation of daughters of opposite party No. 2, first information report was lodged on 19.12.2009 by opposite party No. 2 with regard to harassment and torture of his daughters by the accused-persons in her matrimonial home, in which charge sheet was submitted and trial proceeded against the applicants/accused persons. In the trial, prosecution witnesses have been examined and the case is pending at the stage of defence evidence. In the meantime, the parties concerned have settled their dispute outside the court on 19.9.2017, and pursuant to said settlement, Case No. 63 of 2015 under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. filed by Mrs. Kishwar Jahan and Case No. 89 of 2015 under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. filed by Mrs. Akleena have been dismissed vide orders dated 22.4.2018 and 19.9.2017 respectively. Thereafter, compromise application dated 28.8.2019 was also filed by the parties concerned before the trial court praying therein to decide the case in terms of compromise. It is also submitted that after compromise both daughter of opposite party No. 2 are living with applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 2 respectively in their matrimonial home and now there is no dispute of any kind between the parties concerned, but the said compromise application dated 28.8.2019 has been rejected by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hapur vide impugned order dated 28.8.2019 on the ground that offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 316 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable.

(3.) The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicants is that it is a matrimonial dispute between the husbands and wives and after settlement of the matrimonial dispute, they are living together and leading their life happily along with their children, therefore, the trial court has committed legal error in rejecting the compromise application of the applicants in the matter.