JUDGMENT
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.
1. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows:
2. A case under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at P.S. Manila Thana Rakabganj, Agra was registered on basis of an F.I.R., lodged by the Opp. Party No. 2 against her husband and other family members of the husband.
3. I have heard Sri D.N. Wali, counsel for the applicants, Sri S.P.S. Rathi, counsel for the complainant and Sri R.K. Maurya, Addl. Government Advocate for State.
4. During the course of investigation, the complainant wife settled her differences with the husband and his family and gave an affidavit to the Station House Officer of the concerned police station that the matter between her and her husband has been compromised and she does not want to proceed any further in the matter and therefore, her complaint may be deemed to be foreclosed, so that her family life is not disrupted. She said the same in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the investigating officer. The Investigating Officer, thereafter, filed a final report before the Magistrate.
5. The wife, thereafter also filed an application/affidavit before the Magistrate, saying that the matter has been compromised and she does not want to proceed further in the matter.
6. It is disturbing to note that the final report remained pending before the Magistrate without orders. Thereafter, the wife respondent applied before the Magistrate that the compromise filed by her earlier, was obtained fraudulently by deceit, and her signatures were obtained on blank papers, and she did not give any statement to the investigating officer about the matter being compromised between her and applicants. She also said that no compromise was given by her to Station House Officer.
7. The wife, thereafter filed a protest petition against the final report being accepted. The Magistrate in his order declined to accept the contention of the wife that she was deceived, and her signatures were obtained on plain papers, and that she gave no statement to the investigating officer, about compromise. The Magistrate noted in the order that the photographs were affixed on the compromise affidavit,and she, had been duly identified before the notary and the compromise was not only given to the Magistrate, but also to the Station House Officer. The Magistrate, therefore, refused to accept the pleas of the wife and accepted the final report.
8. A Revision (No. 193 of 2006) was, thereafter filed by the complainant wife and the Sessions Judge (Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 8 Agra) reversed the order of the Magistrate and directed reinvestigation.
9. One of the pleas raised by the counsel for the applicants in this Court is that the Sessions Judge could not direct reinvestigation. The order is in Hindi and Hindi translation of Legal Words can sometimes be loosely interpreted and what has been said by the Magistrate can be deemed to be further investigation, which order could be passed by the Sessions Court.
10. One of the Principal grounds mentioned by the Sessions Judge in his order is that offences under Sections 498A and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable and the compromise filed was meaningless. It has now been held by the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Harvana and Anr. 2003 (46) A.C.C. 799 that compromise can be arrived at between the husband and wife, despite the offences being non-compoundable. The final report by the police in the matter could also be deemed justified, even without a compromise, because the wife was supporting the allegations made by her, and there would, therefore, be no evidence available in support of allegations.
11. When a party takes a stand and makes a declaration before Prescribed Authorities, it should not be allowed to resile from the same and no notice of same should be taken by the authorities concerned, because if that were to happen the wife would report that she has no complaint against her husband Monday day and file a complaint against his misconduct on on other days. Such fickle attitude is to be discountenanced, and should not be legally supportable. Once a posture has been adopted by a party to a dispute, it should not be allowed to resile from the same and must be made to adhere to any settlement or agreement arrived at. It would by against legal ethics to allow the party to change colour like a Chemilon.
12. It may also be noticed that a compromise was also filed by the wife in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the family Court and the case was decided on the basis of the said compromise.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and features, the impugned order dated 15.1.1.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Agra in Criminal Revision No. 193 of 2006 was not justified and is accordingly set aside and the order of the Magistrate dated 27.7.2006 is restored.
14. Petition allowed.