JUDGMENT
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
1. Admittedly the parties are husband and wife and they have entered into compromise. As the compromised case was not compound- able under Section 320, Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Trial Court did not attest the compromise. Against this order of the learned Trial Court that the present action for filing this miscellaneous petition has been resorted.
2. This Court in Santokh Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 RCC 618, has observed as under:
“This Court has taken a consistent view that even though the offences may not be compoundable, but this Court under its inherent powers can quash the proceedings if the ends of justice so demanded.”
3. In Om Prakash Modi v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1994 (1) RLR 389, this Court propounded as under:
“I am always of the view that matrimonial offences are basically family problems, than being offences against the society. Adjustment and tolerance are safe ways for a happy married life. Incidents do take place between a wife and husband and the best way to resolve their dispute is to discuss and find out then mutual solution, instead of seeking of third party, sometimes hasty steps are taken in a state of excitement either by the husband c o wife when a family dispute exists but on a subsequent cool thinking the mistake is realised. In such case, the Courts are expected to administer justice in practical manner.”
4. Again this Court in Saleem & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1997 (3) WLC 364, observed as under :
“It appears from the perusal of certified copy of the compromise petition that Smt. Ulfat Bano has received back all the dowry, gift etc. from her husband Saleem and in-laws and nothing is due at present. Saleem has divorced Smt. Ulfat Bano and it is not possible for them to reside together. In order to lead peaceful and happy life they have decided to live separately. They both are young and are looking forward to lead a new life after remarrying themselves with other persons. Joint application filed by the parties, bears signatures of Smt. Ulfat Bano and Saleem as well as of Sarafat Ali, Vasir Ahmed and Smt. Razia. In such situation when old marriage ties between Smt. Ulfat Bano and Saleem have been broken, it will be in the interest of justice to provide opportunity to the parties to forget their disastrous past and to lead a new happy life. If the parties are allowed to stick to the statements recorded before the police and repeat the same before the Trial Court, it may start a new trial of hatred against each other opening the floodgate for further litigation. To avoid that situation, the ends of justice require that the criminal proceedings should be quashed in the present case.”
5. In Sultan & Anr. v. State & Anr., 1996 Supp. RCC 572, application for compromise was dismissed by the Trial Court stating that offences are not compoundable but the public prosecution in a petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code has no objection if the proceeding quashed on the basis of compromise. This Court held that it is a matter between husband and wife they want to live together and in these circumstances the application was allowed and the proceedings were quashed.
6. In the present case on hand the marriage between Amrit Lal and Smt. Anita took place on 7.5.1987. Some dispute arose between the parties in February, 1992. The mutual repentence of Amrit Lal and Anita again brought them near to each other and they started living together with their 3 children and since January, 1995 there is no dispute between them. On 23.9.1997 Smt. Anita filed a compromise petition before the Trial Court. Looking to the fact that the parties are living happily and had amicably settled their disputes, it/will be in the interest of justice that the criminal proceedings should be quashed in the present case.
7. In the result, I allow this petition and quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 519 of 1996 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Dholpur.