1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 44 of 2003. Alongwith Cr. Appeal Nos. 51/2004, 52/2004 and 53/2004. Date of Decision: July 23, 2008. 1. Cr.MMO No.44/2003. ____________________________________________________________ Smt. Veena Sharma and another. Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others. Respondents. 2. Cr.Appeal No.51/2004. Mansha Ram. Appellant. Versus State of H.P. Respondent. 3. Cr.Appeal No.52/2004. Dina Nath. Appellant. Versus State of H.P. Respondent. 4. Cr.Appeal No.53/2004. Kesari Devi. Appellant. Versus State of H.P. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the Petitioners/Appellants : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer & Mr. Anoop Rattan, Advocate In Cr.MMO No.44/2003. ______________________________________________________________ Surjnder Singh, J (oral). This Criminal Miscellaneous Main Original petition has been preferred before this Hon’ble Court under Section 482 of the Code of Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Criminal Procedure, seeking permission to compound the matter inter-se the parties. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Veena Devi was married to accused Mansha Ram. Both served in the education department and are now retired. Veena Devi had lodged the FIR against her husband that without her consent, Mansha Ram secretly married Kesari Devi accused on 3.8.1992. She was wrongly shown the wife of Bishan Dass and Kesari Devi falsely sworn an affidavit that she has divorced said Bishan Dass when she was in a family way and gave birth to a son which in fact was born from the loins of her husband Mansha Ram. Dina Nath helped Mansha Ram to show Kesari Devi wife of Bishan Dass in the Panchayat records. Veena Devi had lodged the FIR. Accused respondents faced trial and in case No.129/1 of 1999/1993, Mansha Ram, Dina Nath and Kesari Devi accused were convicted and sentenced under Sections 498-A, 466, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Birth, Marriage and Death Registration Act, 1886. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment of conviction and sentence, all the convicts filed three separate appeals in the court of Sessions at Bilaspur. During its pendency, the parties effected a compromise and moved an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C., for withdrawal of the case before the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, which was not allowed as the matter was pending in appeal in the court of Sessions. The complainant Veena Sharma and Mansha Ram convict both wife and husband moved the present petition jointly under 3 Section 482 read with Sections 320 and 321 Cr.P.C., contending that both the parties have compromised the matter and the permission be accorded to compound the matter. A compromise was also placed on record. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioners also moved three applications seeking transfer of the appeals to this Court, bearing Criminal Appeal Nos.18/2002, 19/2002 and 20/2002, pending in the court of Sessions, which are now registered as Cr. Appeal Nos.51/2004, 53/2004 and 52/2004. Pursuant to the last order dated 18.7.2008, the parties were directed to be present in this court and today they have put in appearance and made the statements that vide compromise Ex.C1, both the parties i.e. complainant and the convicts/appellants have compromised the matter to facilitating a happy and harmonious matrimonial life between the spouses, but the offences for which the accused have been convicted and sentenced are non- compoundable, therefore, the matter cannot be finally settled save and except by filing the present petition, seeking indulgence of this court to remove the undue hardship. In Rameshwar @ Pappu and others v. State of Rajasthan : 2001 Cri.L.J. 1962, to both the spouses the permission was granted by the Court to compound the matter under Section 498-A of the Indian Peal Code. In my opinion in the background of this case and keeping in mind that basic object of matrimonial law is to facilitate a happy and harmonious matrimonial life between the spouses, pursuant to the settlement and understanding arrived at between the spouses at the fag end of their life to amicably live together with 4 harmony, the permission to compound the case can be accorded for the above offences which are non-compoundable not only to the spouses but also qua other convicts, as it has arisen from the same complaint. Therefore, in view of the larger interests of the parties and to secure the ends of justice, the present petition is allowed straightway, in these peculiar circumstances. Thus, the leaned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur is directed to accord the permission to compound the offences under Sections 498-A, 466, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Peal Code read with Section 27 of the Birth, Marriage and Death Registration Act, 1886, for which accused persons have been convicted and sentenced, in terms of the applications which shall be presented before him on the above terms. The parties are directed to move the separate applications in each of the appeals pending before the learned Sessions Judge, accompanied by the compromise signed by the complainant and all the convicts. It is hereby directed that the learned Sessions Judge while disposing of the applications moved before him shall order that the fine which has been deposited by the convicts in the trial court, shall be paid to the complainant as a compensation to her. The parties are directed to be present before the Leaned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur on 25.8.2008. Record of the lower courts be returned alongwith a copy of the order. Matters stand disposed of. July 22, 2008. (Surinder Singh) ( Pds ) Judge. 5