RAMDAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Addl. Munsif & Judl. Magistrate No. 2, Alwar dated 14th May, 1993 in criminal case No. 992/90 dismissing the application filed by the parties for recording the compromise and acquitted the accused in pursuance thereof for offence under S. 498-A IPC.

(2.) Wife Smt. Parvati Devi had filed a petition against her husband Ramdas in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Alwar for offence under sections 498-A and 323 IPC. On pursuance by the relations they settled their matrimonial disputes and started living in harmony as husband and wife. To have a better quality of life they decided to withdraw all the cases in between husband and wife and in the same spirit they filed an application for compromise in this case also. Learned Magistrate recorded compromise for offence under section 323 Penal Code and acquitted Ramdas of the charges but he continued the proceedings under S. 498-A Penal Code as the same offence was not compoundable; hence this petition.

(3.) In my opinion learned Magistrate was not in error as the offence is not compoundable, but at the same time when the parties have approached this Court it does behove this court to invoke the provisions of S. 482 Crimial P.C. I have taken a similar view in catena of cases and have held that courts are meant to secure the ends of justice, even otherwise it is pious obligation of any sensible person to help those who for the short time lose their balance in matrimonial alliances. There are always some differences almost in all houses, in few families situations aggravate. Some times either of the spouse due to lack of maturity or otherwise is too sensitive to stay with other spouse and then they come to the lawyer. These days 482 Crimial P.C. (sic) criminal complaint is first in the order of precedence of litigation between the parties. An obligation is cast upon the Family Courts to draw conciliation proceedings and wisdom prevails some times when both start living together again. At this stage if some proceedings under S. 498A Penal Code which is not before the Family Court and which has not permitted to be compromised the very purpose of conciliation would frustrate. I have earlier also said that if wife sides with the husband in the court, court encourages perjury, if not one more opportunity of breaking family bias, is afforded. Therefore, in either circumstances it is going to be contrary to spirit of the legislation in enacting provisions about conciliation. In my opinion therefore ends of justice would only meet in case proceedings under S. 498A Penal Code are dropped and quashed.