D. Biswas, J.
1. This miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for effecting compromise in a family dispute leading to violence and consequent conviction and punishment of the husband and his near relations which is the subject-matter of adjudication in Criminal Appeal (J) No. 5 of 1997.
2. I have heard Mr. A. C. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned counsel for the State.
3. A complaint was filed by the brother of Smt. Saraswati Sutradhar (Dev) alleging that her (Saraswati) husband Nripendra Sutradhar, father-in-law Ramananda Sutradhar and brothers-in-law Rakhal Sutradhar, Ratan Sutradhar and Swapan Sutradhar assaulted his sister on account of non-payment of dowry in cash and kind. The Police registered a case and on completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the husband and others under Section 498A/307/326 read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. The Additional Sessions Judge, Kamalpur, on completion of trial convicted Nripendra Sutradhar (husband), Rakhal Sutradhar, Ratan Sutradhar and Swapan Sutradhar (brothers-in-law) under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for three months.
5. The said judgment of conviction and sentence is under challenge in Criminal Appeal (J) No. 5 of 1997. At this stage, the wife Saraswati Sutradhar (Dev) has submitted this petition for recording an order of compromise on the ground that at the intervention of parents, guardians and other well-wishers, the matter has been amicably settled between them, and she along with her daughter have been living with her husband Nripendra peacefully for about two years. In the interest of family peace and to perpetuate a happy conjugal life, especially in consideration of the future of their daughter, she has prayed for setting aside the impugned order of conviction and sentence.
6. At the very outset it needs mention that the offence under Section 498A, IPC is not compoundable. To overcome this difficulty, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of Bombay High Court reported in 1992 Cri LJ 2106 (Suresh Nathmal Rathi v. State of Maharashtra). In paragraph 17 of the aforesaid judgment, the Bombay High Court dealt with the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and held as follows :-
17. Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 casts on the Court the duty, in the first instance, in matrimonial cases, where it may appear that there may be chance of saving the marriage, to make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties. Both from the personal and social point of view, stability of marriage has certain value. The duty is imposed on every Court. Hence, the State is interested in its security and preservation. The sanctity of marriage is a cornerstone of civilisation.
What is the reconciliation which could be brought about? It can only be in the shape of bringing the parties nearer and making them together and that is achieved only by granting restitution of conjugal rights. It is only in cases where the relief of judicial separation or divorce is asked for by one of the parties, the Court should try to avoid the granting of a relief and see if it is possible to bring them together. For bringing about amity between husband and wife, a Judge should talk to the parties personally. He should not go by the version of their advocates that reconciliation is not possible. If the Court relies upon the advocates only, it would be on the one hand practically not a good approach and on the other it would fall short of the duty of the Court of making every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the estranged spouses.
In the case of V.K. Gupta v. Smt. Nirmala Gupta (1979) 4 SCC 258. Their Lordships observed that:-
It is fundamental that reconciliation of a ruptured marriage is the first essay of the Judge, aided by counsel in their noble adventure. The sanctity of marriage is in essence, the foundation of civilization and, therefore, Court and counsel owe a duty to society to strain to the utmost to repair the snapped relation between the parties. This task becomes more insistent when an innocent offspring of the wedding struggle in between the disputed parents.
It means reconciliation is a joint process or endeavour by the Courts and the counsel of the parties to work on the minds of the clients and to heal a wound situation into a healthy reapproachment, so that the parties would act sensitively and constructively. Naturally there would be initial resistace, mistrust, apprehension. At the end of this connciliation journey, it is possible to reach a happy situation resulting in the resolution of the conflict between the parties and eventual restoration of the conjugal home to enjoy the ardour and love of partners in life. An ideal marriage is one where-
each suck,ed into each
on the new stream rolls
whatever rocks obstruct.
7. The Bombay High Court for the reasons quoted above allowed the petition accepting the composition and granted permission acquitting the accused persons. While passing the order, the Bombay High Court also relied upon the decision in the case of Ramji Lal v. State of Haryana (1983) 1 SCC 368, where their Lordships of the Supreme Court allowed the parties to enter into a composition to restore friendly and good neighbourly relations as well as to restore harmony in society. The Bombay High Court also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1988 SC 2111 : 1989 Cri LJ 121, Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, where their Lordships directed the trial Judge to accord permission to compound the offence after giving opportunities to the parties and after being satisfied with the compromise between the parties. The Supreme Court in that case allowed the compromise to be effected although the accused persons in that case were convicted under Section 307, IPC.
8. Taking the principles highlighted by the Apex Court as well as the Bombay High Court and considering that the husband and wife and their minor daughter are now living peacefully for the last two years without any disharmony amongst them, it will be contrary to the principles underlined in Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to refuse the prayer. I, therefore, decide to accept the composition with the reservation that instead of recording acquittal, in view of the compromise, the operation of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence be suspended for a period of two years as a check on the possible deterioration of relationship between the husband and wife.
9. In the result, the misc. petition and the connected appeal are disposed of with the direction to the learned trial Judge to dispose of the petition of compromise, a copy of which shall be forwarded by the Registry while transmitting the lower Court records, after hearing the parties in the light of the above observation suspending the operation of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence for a period of two years. After lapse of two years, the parties may jointly apply to the learned trial Judge for recording an order of acquittal. It is needless to point out that liberty shall remain with the wife, the victim of the outrage, to revive the judgment of conviction and sentence at any time before an order of acquittal is recorded.