R.S. Verma, J.
1. Heard learned public prosecutor for the State.
2. Respondent Gopal is the husband, Smt. Amba Bai is the mother-in-law, Smt. Birdi Bai is the sister-in-law and Kalu Ram is the brother-in-law of Smt. Tulsi Devi. It appears that upon the report of Smt. Tulsi Devi a Criminal Case under Section 498A, I.P.C. was registered against the husband Gopal Lal and the other respondents with Police Station, Gangapur District Bhilwara. After due investigation, the police found that the husband and the other respondents had treated Smt. Tulsi Devi with cruelty. Upon this, a challan was filed against the husband Gopal Lal, the mother-in-law Amba Bai, sister-in-law Bardi Bai and brother-in-law Kalu Ram for offence under Section 498A, I.P.C.
2. On 26-10-1990, Tulsi Devi moved petition before the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur stating that she had compromised the matter with the respondents and she did not want to proceed with the case. She further stated that she was living amicably with husband Gopal. She, therefore, prayed that she may be allowed to compound the offence. The learned Magistrate after hearing all concerned, accepted the compromise and acquitted the respondents of offence under Section 498A, I.P.C.
4. Aggrieved, the State has filed this petition for leave to appeal. The learned public prosecutor has contended that the learned trial Magistrate could not have allowed composition of the offence, inasmuch as the offence was not compoundable in accordance with the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submits that the learned Magistrate fell in error of law in following Ram Kishore v. State of Raj, 1989 Cri LR (Raj) 386. He, therefore, submits that the State may be permitted to challenge the acquittal of the respondents.
5. I have considered the contention and I find that the contention has no substance. This is true that offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Hon'ble apex Court in Mahesh Chand v. State of Raj, AIR 1988 SC2111: (1989 Cri LJ 121) permitted parties to compound an offence falling under Section 307, I.P.C. even though such an offence was not compound-able. In doing so the apex Court took into consideration the peculiar facts of that case resulting into an amicable settlement.
6. In Ram Kishore's case (1989 Cri LR (Raj) 386), which was followed by the trial court in the instant case, a petition had been filed under Section 382(sic) Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (4), Jaipur City, for offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. In that case, the parties had entered into a compromise and had prayed for acquittal of the accused-persons. The application for compromise was refused by the learned trial court on the ground that the offence was non-compoundable and as such it was not possible to record the compromise. He, therefore, rejected the application to record the compromise. Aggrieved, Ram Kishore approached this Court for relief. Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Dave, J. while accepting the contention of the accused observed :--
It is given to understand that all the parties have amicably settled all their disputes and do not intend to carry on any further illwill.... I have held that in the cases like the one between husband and wife where there are several cases of matrimonial offences, if some of them are compromised, it is in the interest of justice to permit the same in the others also so that false records are not prepared. As in such cases if the parties stick to the statement recorded before the police and repeats the same in the Court, it starts a new opening the hatredness against each other opening the flood gate for further litigation and if party does not stick to the same then they are declared hostile and are branded as false witnesses. In any eventuality, it does not advance the case of justice for which the courts are meant but brings more gulf between the parties. In these circumstances, I deem it proper to accept this application.
The learned Judge, accordingly, permitted the parties to compound the offence and directed the learned Magistrate to record the same.
7. In the present case, there was a solitary case between the parties, which the parties have compromised. The wife has started living amicably with her husband. The wife has, thus condoned the offence of matrimonial cruelty. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, an act of cruelty by husband can be condoned by the wife and that puts an end to the offence of matrimonial cruelty. Technically speaking, a Hindu Marriage like any other marriages, is a union between two spouses but when we look to the Hindu Society, it is a union between two families and is almost a social event where all friends and relatives participate. The matrimonial differences some time arise and may eventually lead to matrimonial disharmony. The Matrimonial Courts, as a measure of public policy, try for re-conciliation between the parties so that the disputes are settled and a happy matrimonial life begins. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has acted wisely in permitting the parties to compound the offence. If the case would have been allowed to proceed, it would have led to further ill-will between the wife on one hand and her husband her in-laws on the other hand. I am surprised why the State has at all filed this petition for leave to appeal when the matter had been amicably settled between the parties. It does not behave the State to act in a too technical manner, in such matter. To my mind, reopening of the dispute is bound to create a storm in the calm waters of domestic felicity between husband and wife a situation which the State should like to create. In my opinion, it is high time that the legislature should consider whether offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. should not be included in the list of offences under Section 320, Cr.P.C.
8. In the circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case to grant leave to appeal to the State. The leave is refused.
9. A copy of this judgment may be sent to the Home Secretary to the Government of India for taking such action as is deemed proper with regard to amendment of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.