JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition moved under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against the order of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3 Jodhpur dated 22.2.1990 by which he has refused to record compromise for the offences punishable under Section 498A, IPC. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus. 2. On the report of the petitioner, a challan was filed against the non-petitioners under Sections 448, 498A and 120B IPC on February 22, 1990, a compromise petition Was moved by the parties before the learned Magistrate stating that compromise has been effected between them, there exists now no disputed in between the petitioner's daughter Mst. Tara has started living with her husband Daulal (non-petitioner No. 4) for the last four years and during this period she has given birth to a male child and it has, been prayed that the accused-petitioners may be acquitted on the basis of the compromise. The learned Magistrate recorded the compromise under section 448, IPC but refused to record the compromise under Sections 498A and 120B, IPC as they were not compoundable. 3. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner Jai Singh has died and his Legal representatives have moved an application on April 4, 1991 for substituting their names in his place. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the dispute was in between Mst. Tara and her husband Daulal. They have started living happily together since the year 1984 and under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Magistrate should have accorded permission for compromising the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 498A, IPC. He relied upon Mahesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan and Ramkishor v. State of Rajasthan 1989 R.C.C. 142. 5. In reply, the learned public prosecutor submits that similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Verma in another case. He does not oppose the petition. 6. The facts of the present case are similar to the case Ramkishor v. State of Rajasthan 1989 R.C.C. 142. It would be best to quote here para No. 2 of it. It runs as under: "I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and learned public prosecutor. Justice R.S. Verma in another case. He does not oppose the petition. 6. The facts of the present case are similar to the case Ramkishor v. State of Rajasthan 1989 R.C.C. 142. It would be best to quote here para No. 2 of it. It runs as under: "I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and learned public prosecutor. It is given to understand that all the parties have amicably settled all their disputes and do not intend to carry on any further ill will. Reliance has been place by learned Counsel for the parties on a decision of their Lordships of the supreme court in Mahesh Chand and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR 1988 SC 2111 wherein their Lordships have observed as under: "We gave our anxious consideration to the case and also the plea put forward for seeking permission to compound the offence. After examining the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence was committed, it may be proper that the trial court shall permit them to compound the offence. The supreme court, directed the trial Judge to accord permission to compound the offence. This was under Section 307 IPC which was not compoundable yet their Lordships directed the trial court to register the compromise. I have also taken a similar view in an earlier case where I have held that in the cases like the one between husband and wife where there are several cases of matrimonial offences, if some of them are compromised, it is in the interest of justice to permit same in others also so that false records are not prepared. As in such cases in the parties sticks to the statement recorded before the police and repeats the same in the court, it starts a new trial of hatredness against each other opening the floodgate for further litigation and if party does not strike to the same then they are declared hostile and are branded as false witnesses. In any eventuality, it does not advance the cause of justice for which the courts are meant but brings more gulf between the parties. In these circumstances, I deem it proper to accept this application. As such the petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Consequently, the petition moved under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is allowed. The learned Addl. In any eventuality, it does not advance the cause of justice for which the courts are meant but brings more gulf between the parties. In these circumstances, I deem it proper to accept this application. As such the petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Consequently, the petition moved under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is allowed. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3 Jodhpur is directed to accord permission to compound the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 498A, IPC. The parties will appear before him on May 29, 1991. Let a copy of the order be sent to him forthwith for compliance.Petition allowed. *******