RAVI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) PETITIONER -husband has filed this writ application assailing the order dates 12.1.2007, passed in Complaint Case No. 1622(C) of 2003, whereunder the SDJM Patna has allowed the petition of the opposite party -wife observing that the offences u/s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable. Prior to the recording of the said impugned order, parties had filed petition dated 17.7.2004, Annexure -2, whereunder they had agreed to settle the allegation set out in the complaint case as also in the Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 205. of 2004 on payment of Rs. Eight lacs by the petitioner to the opposite party -wife, which payment, according to the counsel for the petitioner has already been made, whereafter opposite party -wife filed the petition, which has been considered and allowed under order dated 12.1.2007 asserting that the earlier petition, Annexure -2 was filed under some misconception and she is not inclined to settle the allegation set out in the complaint case. The court below has disposed of the petition holding that offences u/s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that offence u/s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act may not be compoundable in terms of the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the offence being against the individual affecting the family and the society, matter is required to be considered in a different perspective as has been done by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. V/s. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 4 SCC 675, whereunder their Lordships having considered the claim of the parties, permitted the offence u/s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to be compounded for giving decent quietus to the matrimonial dispute between them so that better social relationship and peace prevails in the two family. The aspects con - sidered in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. (supra) does not appear to have been considered by the court below when it passed impugned order dated 12.1.2007.

(3.) IN the circumstances, impugned order dated 12.1.2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court of SDJM, Patna to reconsider the allegation set out in the complaint case in the light of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others (supra), but before such reconsideration is made, the entire amount of Rs. Eight lacs already paid to the wife opposite party or kept in deposit in the Nazarat be returned to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 10% from the date of payment or deposit within a time specified by the court below for which repayment even counsel for the opposite party -wife has no objection. Even at this belated stage, parties are at liberty to settle the entire matrimonial dispute outside the court.