UMASHANKAR Vs. M.P. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.5.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur district Shajapur in Criminal Appeal No. 188/05, whereby the judgment dated 31.5.2005 passed by JMFC, Shujalpur in Criminal Case No. 121/05, whereby the petitioners were convicted for an offence punishable under Sec. 498A, Indian Penal Code for the period of six months each and with a fine of Rs. 100 each was confirmed to the extent of conviction and the sentence of petitioner No. 1 was reduced from six months to one month and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were released by giving the benefit of probation of Offenders Act, keeping in view that the petitioner No. 2 is in the services of Indian Railways and petitioner No. 3 is a lady, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners.

(2.) Case of the prosecution was that Sunita was married to the petitioner No. 1. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of Sunitabai. Further case of the prosecution was that all the family members behaved cruelly with Sunita. Hence the offence was registered against.the petitioners under Sec. 498A, IPC. After recording the evidence the petitioners were convicted for a period of six months RI and fine of Rs. 100 each, against which an appeal was filed by the petitioners, in which the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were given the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act acid were released while the sentence of the petitioner No. 1 was reduced from six months to one month against which the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that a compromise petition was filed on 22.5.2006 wherein it was alleged that the matter has been settled between the complainant and the petitioners in compromise, therefore, complainant does not want to prosecute the petition any further. After hearing the parties learned Court below dismissed the application on the ground that in a prosecution filed under Sec. 498A, compromise is not permissible. Learned Counsel submits that the learned Courts below committed error in holding that the compromise is not permissible in a case filed under Sec. 498A, IPC.