JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, the petitioner has prayed that impugned order dated 28.8.93 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kota be quashed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner sent a complaint to the Dy.I.G. Range Kota and to the Supdt. of Police, Kota on 7.3.88 stating therein that her husband and members of his family are demanding dowry and they are torturing her. It has also been alleged that they have tried to commit her murder and therefore the case was registered for the offence under section 498-A of IPC. After investigation the challan was filed, but in trial the petitioner denied for all the charges against her husband and members of his family. Not only this, the petitioner has also filed an application before the trial court that she has no complaint against her husband and members of his family, and she is living happily with them, therefore the permission be given for compounding the case. But the trial court rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the case is not compoundable therefore no permission can be given for compounding the case. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 28.8.93 of the trial court, the petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the decisions of this court in Smt. Jasoda and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan (1992 Cr.L.R. (Raj. 530) ; Gursharan Kaur v. State of Rajasthan (1993 Cr.LJ. 2076) and Ram Kishore Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (1989 RCC 142) . 4. By this court vide order dated 3.2.94 the petitioner was directed to appear in person and she appeared on 8.2.94. The petitioner admitted that now she has no complaint against her husband and the members of his family, she is living happily with them and if the proceedings will continue, rather it will affect adversely their happy married life. She also supported her statement given in the trial court. 5. In the case of Smt. Jasoda and Ors. The petitioner admitted that now she has no complaint against her husband and the members of his family, she is living happily with them and if the proceedings will continue, rather it will affect adversely their happy married life. She also supported her statement given in the trial court. 5. In the case of Smt. Jasoda and Ors. (supra) this court has observed as under:- "It is not in dispute that the offences under Section 498A and 147 IPC are not compoundable, but the dispute is between the wife and the husband and if they have amicably settled their disputes and want to live peacefully and amicably and in-laws of the complainant are ready to keep the complainant (wife) with dignity and honour in the family of her in-laws then the court is not expected to come in the way of settling of their disputes by way of a compromise deed. It will be in the interest of justice that the parties should be allowed to compound the matter and to bridge-up the differences between them as they are close relatives. When the complainant and the accused have settled their differences and with open heart want to live together then it will be in the interest of justice that the court should come to their rescue and allow them to compound the matter as that will advance the cause of justice, for which the Courts are established." 6. It is true that the compromise is not allowed in a case where the offence is under Section 498A IPC, but no purpose will serve. On the contrary the interest the complainant will adversely affect if the proceedings are allowed to continue. In such cases the proceedings should not be allowed in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of parties. Therefore when compromise serve the purpose of the complainant and save her interest, I am inclined to allow this petition. 7. In the result the impugned order dated 28.8.93 is quashed and the proceedings in case No. 486/89 before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kota are dropped. *******