Rameshwar @ Pappu and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....petition allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - (4). keeping in..........an application for permitting the parties for compromise but the same was rejected by the learned additional sessions judge no, 2. bhilwara vide order dated 16.5.2000 holding that section 498a ipc is not compound-able and against that order, this petition u/s. 482 cr.p.c. has been filed.(3). this court in ram kishore vs. the state of rajasthan and ors. (1) has held that it is proper to accord permission to compound offence u/s. 498a ipc. similar view is taken by the hon'ble andhra pradesh high court in thathapadi venkatalakshmi vs. slate of andhra pradesh (2). this court in a latest decision in ghanshyam saini vs. state of rajasthan and anr. (33 has further reiterated the same view.(4). keeping in mind the law laid down in the above rulings and keeping in mind that the basic object of any matrimonial law is to facilitate a happy and harmonious matrimonial life between the spouses though under different circumstances they approached the court the permission sought for to compound the offence u/s. 498a ipc pursuant upon the settlement and understanding between the spouses to amicably live together with harmony should be accorded by this court u/s. 482 cr.p.c.(5). therefore, in.....

Judgment:

ORDER

Garg, J.

(1). This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the accused petitioners u/S.482 Cr.P.C. against the order dt. 16.5.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No. 287/96 whereby the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge No. 2 rejected the application of the accused petitioners and non-petitioner no. 2 filed in the Court to compound the offence u/S. 498A IPC.

(2). It arises in the following circumstances:-

The accused petitioners were convicted by the trial court for the offence u/S. 498A IPC by judgment and order dated 4.2.1994 and each of them was sentenced to undergo six months RI and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months RI. Against that judgment and order, an appeal was filed by the accused petitioners which was being heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara. During the pendency of the appeal, both accused petitioners and the complainant-non-petitioner No. 2 filed an application for permitting the parties for compromise but the same was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No, 2. Bhilwara vide order dated 16.5.2000 holding that Section 498A IPC is not compound-able and against that order, this petition u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed.

(3). This Court in Ram Kishore vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1) has held that it is proper to accord permission to compound offence u/S. 498A IPC. Similar view is taken by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Thathapadi Venkatalakshmi vs. Slate of Andhra Pradesh (2). This Court in a latest decision in Ghanshyam Saini vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. (33 has further reiterated the same view.

(4). Keeping in mind the law laid down in the above rulings and keeping in mind that the basic object of any matrimonial law is to facilitate a happy and harmonious matrimonial life between the spouses though under different circumstances they approached the court the permission sought for to compound the offence u/S. 498A IPC pursuant upon the settlement and understanding between the spouses to amicably live together with harmony should be accorded by this Court u/S. 482 Cr.P.C.

(5). Therefore, in view of the larger interest of the parties and to secure ends of justice, this criminal misc., petition u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed straightway and the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara dated 16.5.2000 is set aside and the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara is directed to accord permission to compound the offence u/S. 198A IPC in terms of the application presented before the court. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara on 3.3.2001.