RAM SWAROOP Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Satyaveer Singh, learned counsel appearing for non-petitioner No.2 Smt. Sharda wife of the petitioner. He has filed his Vakalatnama in Court which may be placed on record.

(2.) Mr. Ramswaroop, petitioner (husband) as well as non-petitioner No.2 Smt. Sharda (wife) who are present in person before this Court are identified by their counsel. The petitioner is identified by Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, Advocate and non-petitioner No.2 Smt. Sharda is identified by Mr. Satyaveer Singh, Advocate.

(3.) From the perusal of the material placed before me and also from the order passed by the learned Magistrate, it is borne out that non-petitioner No.2 Smt. Sharda has lodged FIR No. 198/99 against her husband petitioner upon which, the challan was filed before the learned Magistrate and when the statement of non-petitioner No.2 was to be recorded then the petitioner husband entered into a compromise with non-petitioner No.2. Non-petitioner No.2 stated before the learned Magistrate that She does not want to press her complaint against her husband Ramswaroop. The learned Magistrate rejected the compromise entered into between the petitioner and non-petitioner No.2 Smt. Sharda holding that the offence under Section 498A. IPC is not compoundable.