MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are husband, brothers-in-law, in-laws and sister-in-law or the respondent No. 2 wife, have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. against the order dated 21.3.2006 and for quashing the proceedings or criminal case No. 138/04 pending the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior, for the offences under Section 498A, IPC.

(2.) In nutshell the case of the petitioners is that the marriage of petitioner No.1 Mahendra Singh with respondent No. 2 Smt. Sunita took place on 29.1.2003 as per the Hindu customs and rites at Dabra. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are brothers-in-law (Jeth and Devar), petitioner No. 4 is father-in-law and petitioner No. 5 is mother-in-law and petitioner No. 6 is sister-in-law. (Jethani) of the respondent No. 2 wife. On 18.7.04 the respondent No. 2 wife lodged FIR at Mahila Police Station Padav, District Gwalior against the petitioners that they used to harass, demand dowry, beat her and practise cruelty with her. On the basis of the report a criminal case was registered against the petitioners and after investigation challan was filed and a criminal case No. 138/04 is pending in the court of A.C. J.M., Gwalior for the offences under Section 498A of IPC. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal case both the parties entered into compromise and they have settled their dispute outside the Court and have started living together as husband and wife and now they have no dispute between them and they both have filed separate applications under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. in the trial Court for permission to.record compromise and to drop the proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of the compromise. Petitioners also filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the respondent No. 2 in the light of the compromise but the trial Court has not accepted the same holding that the offence under Section 498A of IPC, is not compoundable under Sub-Section (2) of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. and also dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling and re-cross-examination filed by the petitioners, against which petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner husband and respondent wife both are present before me and they have stated on affidavit that they have settled their dispute and they have started living together. They have also promised that in future too they will live peacefully. Both the parties have filed their own affidavits and have prayed that under inherent powers compromise be accepted and charge sheet be quashed and for that placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003 (2) Crimes 284 (Sc)