PANDEY SHASHI BHUSHAN SHITANSHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel appearing for the parties in both the cases, it does appear that compliant case no.1687 of 2006 was lodged by Reena Kumari alleging therein that the husband and other family members subjected her to torture and thereby a case was instituted under section 498A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in which cognizance of the aforesaid offences was taken. However, before the trial court could proceed, parties settled heir matrimonial dispute. Thereupon, petition for compromise was filed with a prayer to quash the proceeding. No doubt offences alleged are non -compoundable in terms of section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but that would not be a bar in allowing the parties to compromise the matter for the ends of justice in exercise of power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in view of the decision rendered in a case of B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another (supra) wherein it has been observed hereunder: