IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. 86 of 2003 Judgment reserved on : 25.11.2009 Date of decision : 6.1.2010 ____________________________________________________ State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Shekhar Bhattacharji …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant AG. For the Respondent : Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate Kuldip Singh, Judge This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 5.8.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.8-S/10 of 2000, acquitting the respondent under Section 498-A IPC. 2. The further relevant facts are that respondent was prosecuted for offence punishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 506 IPC. PW-7 Smt. Tina Bhattacharji had lodged a complaint Ex.PW-7/A with the police on 26.6.1993 and thereupon formal FIR was registered. On completion of investigation challan under Sections 323, 498-A, 506 IPC was filed against respondent and he was charged accordingly. The respondent did not plead guilty; the prosecution has examined 10 ________________________ ¹ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes 2 witnesses and has also placed on record some documentary evidence. The statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the prosecution case, but led no evidence in defence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent under Sections 323, 506 IPC but convicted and sentenced him under Section 498-A IPC vide judgment dated 15.5.2000. In appeal learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent under Section 498-A IPC, hence State has come in appeal. 3. The complainant-injured and respondent have filed joint application being Cr.MP No.585 of 2009 under Sections 482, 320 Cr.P.C. for compounding the case. The respondent and complainant/injured appeared in this court on 25.11.2009 and they were duly identified by learned counsel for the respondent. The complainant and respondent have stated that Cr.MP No.585 of 2009 has been filed by them jointly and they admitted the contents of the said application. In the application, it has been stated that the respondent had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla for dissolution of their marriage. In that petition during reconciliation the dispute between the parties was settled. Thereafter respondent has withdrawn divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 21.7.2006 as the relationship between the parties has become cordial and they are living together happily since then. The complainant and respondent have agreed to compromise the present petition. It has been also stated that one daughter has born to the parties from the wedlock. The present dispute has been compromised 3 without any coercion, threat or pressure. The complainant and respondent ultimately prayed for settling the dispute in terms of their compromise. The application has been supported by affidavits of complainant as well as respondent. 4. In State of H.P. vs. Kartar Singh and others 1997 CR.L.J.2321 the complaint was filed by wife under Section 498-A, 506, 307 IPC. The matter was allowed to be compounded by learned Sessions Judge. A learned Single Judge of this Court held that compounding of offence was beyond the jurisdiction of learned Sessions Judge but under Section 482 permitted complainant to compound the matter in the interest of justice. The present case is on better footing. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had acquitted the respondent under Sections 323, 506 IPC but convicted him under Section 498-A IPC also. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent. The appeal is against acquittal. The complainant/injured and respondent have filed the application for compounding of the matter. It has come on record that the complainant and respondent are happily living together as husband and wife; they have also one daughter from the wedlock. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case for compounding the dispute. The appeal is therefore, dismissed having been compounded and the respondent is acquitted of all the charges. January 6, 2009. (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge.