Jai Prakash Chaurasia Vs. State of Bihar and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, 1973, sections 320 and 482 - indian penal code, 1860, sections 498-a, 406 and 494--complaint by wife--filed against husband under sections 498-a, 406 and 494--pending before trial court--parties filing petition before high court, praying for compaunding of offences-although these offences are not compoundable-but keepping in view the interest of justice, high court permitted parties to compromise and directed trial court to record the compromise--[compounding of offences-interest of justice can be applied for]. - - and since the parties had come to an agreement and good sense had prevailed upon them, the supreme court directed the court below to permit the parties to compound the offence. 9. i accordingly direct the learned magistrate to record the compromise after giving opportunity to the parties of being heard and in case the court is satisfied it shall permit the parties to compound the offence 10. with the above observations/directions, this application is disposed of. narayan roy, j.1. in this case, a joint petition has been filed on behalf of the complainant and this petitioner for compromising the case launched by opposite party no. 2, wife of this petitioner, under sections 498a, 406 and 494 of the indian penal code.2. now in this petition it has been stated on behalf of the wife that she is not willing to prosecute the petitioner.3. in this case, i find that the case has been instituted upon a complaint filed by opposite party no. 2.4. in this case, the petitioner is also prosecuted under section 494 of the i.p.c. as per section 198 of the cr. p.c. i find that the prosecution under section 494 of the ipc can only be initiated on the complaint made by the aggrieved party. here, the complainant has come forward in this application before this court showing her willingness not to proceed with the matter. i find that the offence under sections 498a, 406 and 494 of of the ipc are not compoundable. 5. counsel for the parties have placed reliance in mahesh chand and anr. v. state of rajashan : 1988crilj121 . in mahesh chand (supra) i find that the offence was under section 307 of the i.p.c. and since the parties had come to an agreement and good sense had prevailed upon them, the supreme court directed the court below to permit the parties to compound the offence.6. in this case i find that the complainant wife has shown her willing. ness not to prosecute the petitioner and she has come to this court and mined hands by filing compromise petition along with the accused petitioner.7. i have given anxious consideration to the case and also the plea put forward for seeking permission to compound the offence.8. after examination the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence has been committed it would be proper to compound the offence, and m my opinion, it would also meet the ends of justice.9. i accordingly direct the learned magistrate to record the compromise after giving opportunity to the parties of being heard and in case the court is satisfied it shall permit the parties to compound the offence 10. with the above observations/directions, this application is disposed of.

Judgment:

Narayan Roy, J.

1. In this case, a joint petition has been filed on behalf of the complainant and this petitioner for compromising the case launched by opposite party No. 2, wife of this petitioner, under Sections 498A, 406 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Now in this petition it has been stated on behalf of the wife that she is not willing to prosecute the petitioner.

3. In this case, I find that the case has been instituted upon a complaint filed by opposite party No. 2.

4. In this case, the petitioner is also prosecuted under Section 494 of the I.P.C. as per Section 198 of the Cr. P.C. I find that the prosecution under Section 494 of the IPC can only be initiated on the complaint made by the aggrieved party. Here, the complainant has come forward in this application before this Court showing her willingness not to proceed with the matter. I find that the offence under Sections 498A, 406 and 494 of of the IPC are not compoundable.

5. Counsel for the parties have placed reliance in Mahesh Chand and Anr. v. State of Rajashan : 1988CriLJ121 . In Mahesh Chand (supra) I find that the offence was under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and since the parties had come to an agreement and good sense had prevailed upon them, the Supreme Court directed the Court below to permit the parties to compound the offence.

6. In this case I find that the complainant wife has shown her willing. ness not to prosecute the petitioner and she has come to this Court and mined hands by filing compromise petition along with the accused petitioner.

7. I have given anxious consideration to the case and also the plea put forward for seeking permission to compound the offence.

8. After Examination the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence has been committed it would be proper to compound the offence, and m my opinion, it would also meet the ends of justice.

9. I accordingly direct the learned Magistrate to record the compromise after giving opportunity to the parties of being heard and in case the Court is satisfied it shall permit the parties to compound the offence

10. With the above observations/directions, this application is disposed of.