ORDER
Pradip Mohanty, J.
1. Affidavits have been filed by the petitioner and the informant in Court today. Same be kept on record.
2. In pursuance of the order dated 11.4.2007, petitioner-Bichitra Behera and the informant-Smt. Meera Rani Behera are present in Court today. In her affidavit Meera Rani has stated that the matter has been settled between them and they are staying together with their children. She has also stated in the affidavit that due to some misunderstanding between them, she had lodged the F.I.R. before the Police Station under Section 498A/307/294/506 IPC. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-C.J.M., Mayurbhanj, Baripada convicted the petitioner-husband and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. The petitioner filed Crl. Appeal No. 13/74 of 2004-2003 before the learned Ad hoc Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Baripada, but he confirmed the sentence and dismissed the appeal. Against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Courts below the petitioner has preferred this revision.
3. Heard Mr. B. Nayak, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pradhan learned Counsel for the informant and Mr. S.K.
Nayak, learned Additional Standing Counsel.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the informant on the intervention of the mother-in-law and other well wishers and they are leading a happy conjugal life with their children. One MAT case, which was pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada against the petitioner has also been withdrawn by the informant on 26.6.2006 by filing a memo. Therefore, he prays for compounding the offences under Section 498A I.P.C.
5. Mr. Pradhan, learned Counsel for the informant also admits the same and submits that they are leading a happy conjugal life with their children. Relying on the decision , Mahesh Chand and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and , Y. Suresh Babu v. State of A.P., he submits that the offences may be compounded.
6. Perused the judgment of the Courts below and the decisions of the Supreme Court. In the above case, the marriage was solemnised in the year 1992, the first child was born in October 1993, the second child in 1997, and they were leading a happy conjugal life. Due to some misunderstanding F.I.R. was lodged. Thereafter the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court. The M.A.T. Case was withdrawn on 26.6.2006 by the informant after settlement keeping in view the future of the children. In view of the fact that both the parties are living peacefully and maintaining a happy conjugal life with their children, in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of litigation between the parties, by applying the ratio decided in above referred cases, this Court accepts the compromise and sets aside the order of conviction and sentence on the basis of the such compromise.
7. The CRLREV is disposed of accordingly.
8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.