SAROJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE father -in -law of the patitioner lodged a First Information Report against the petitioner and her husband and others alleging that the petitioner had caused injury to the ear of his wife by biting her. Challan was presented for the offence Under Sections 326, 341, 323 and 452 IPC. The parties compromised the matter and moved an application before the trial court for giving permission to compound the case but as the offence Under Sections 326 and 452 are not compoundable even with the permission of the court, the Magistrate refused to allow the parties to compromise the case.

(2.) CHALLENGING this decision, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the parties to the proceedings are close relatives and when they have entered into a compromise there is no purpose in keeping the case pending. It is contended that the parties who are living in one house want to have good relations and with this view the complainant does not want to proceed with the prosecution of the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Harinarain and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan 1989 RCC 335. Considering the circumstances that the parties are in sear relations and also taking into consideration the injury, which is said to have been caused by the petitioner it can be said that this is a fit case where in permission to compromise the matter can be given to the parties. It is necessary to secure the ends of justice to give such a permission.