1. This revision is directed against the order refusing permission to withdraw the case file, under Sec. 498-A IPC by the wife against her husband.
2. The brief facts are: The wife-petitioner herein filed a report before the police alleging harassment and cruelty against her husband. Thereupon the police filed the charge sheet and the Magistrate took cognizance of the same under Sec. 498-A IPC. However, pursuant to an amicable settlement between the spouses to lead a harmonious matrimonial life, the wife filed a petition before the Magistrate to permit her to withdraw the case. The Court below on the ground that the offence is not compoundable dismissed the said petition. Hence this revision.
3. The learned counsel for the wife submitted that though it is not a case for being compounded under Sec. 320 Cr. P.C the Court below could permit withdrawal of the complaint under the provisions of Sec. 257 Cr.P.C It is to be noted that it is the charge-sheet filed by the police that formed basis for the Court to take cognizance of the offence. The wife filed the report before the police and not before the Court. She, therefore, cannot be permitted to withdraw the chargesheet filed by the police.
4. However, turning to the submission, alternatively put forth, by the learned counsel that though the offence covered by Sec. 498-A IPC is not one listed under Sec. 320 Cr. P.C for being compounded, still keeping in view the changed circumstances and the settlement arrived at between th??? spouses to lead an amicable matrimonial life with harmony, the offence could be permitted to be compounded by exercising powers under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C more particularly when the intent of law is to f???cilitate to a pe???ceful living; it is to be seen that there is substantial force in this. In this behalf, the learned counsel took me through two decisions, one of the Supreme Court and the other of the Karnataka High Court. In Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan 1990 Supp SCC 681 the Supreme Court was concerned with an offence under Sec. 307 IPC, which is not compoundable under Sec. 320 Cr. P.C The Supreme Court treating it as a special case directed the trial Court to accord permission to compound the offence after being satisfied of the compromise. Similarly in State Of Karnataka v. Basavaraju* 1990 2 Crimes 196, the permission to compound accorded by the trial Court, though the offence is not one so permissible under Sec. 320 Cr. P.C is not interfered with by observing that keeping in view the welfare of the parties in the matrimonial case and to see that the feelings of the parties are not strained for the rest of their life— the larger interests of the couple—the trial Court had rightly granted the permission.
5. As noted, the offence involved in the present revision is one under Sec. 498-A IPC. This section was introduced by Act 46 of 1983 on account of the increasing number of dowry deaths and cases of cruelty meted out to the married women at the hands of their husbands and in-laws. Though in the instant case, the wife made a report to the police regarding the cruetly meted out to her at the hands of ber husband, the parties had some reconciliation, there were talks for settlement, and there was agreement between the spouses to lead a harmonious matrimonial life. Since the basic object of any matrimonial law is to facilitate a happy and harmonious marital life between the spouses-though under different circumstances they approached the Court-the permission sought for to compound the offence under Sec. 498-A IPC pursuant upon the settlement and understanding between the spouses to amicably live toge???her with harmony, can be accorded by this Court under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C Keeping, therefore, in view the larger interests of the parties and to secure the ends of Justice the Court below is directed by exercising powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C to accord permission to compound the offence after examining the parties in Court and after satisfying about the voluntary nature of the settlement and the consequent filing of the petition in question for purposes of compounding the offence.
6. The revision is accordingly allowed with the direction noted supra.