JUDGMENT D.N. Prasad. J. 1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the Judgment, dated 20.9.1996 passed by the Sessions Judge. Palamau in Cr. Appeal No. 99 of 1995 by which he set-aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused Lakhan Shukla, Mahinder Shukla and Anuj Shukla under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code but maintained their conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against all the petitioners under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution In brief as stated that one Subhadra Devi was married with petitioner Anil Shukla in the year 1983 and out of the said wedlock a female child was born In the year 1985. The marital relationship between the couple was not happy soon after the marriage and Subhadra Devi was being subjected to cruelty and torture by her husband and her in-laws as they were demanding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in addition a motor-cycle and due to non- fulfilment of the demand she was being tortured by the petitioners. 3. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners. 4. All the petitioners were convict and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 498A. IPC. The petitioners had also preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge against the judgment of the trial Court. The Sessions Judge after considering the evidence on record maintained the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 498A, IPC against the petitioners, though he had set -aside the judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 494, IPC. 5. Subhadra Devi, the victim also appeared with vakalatnama and filed a compromise petition claiming therein that there Is no grievance now against her husband as well as against in laws as the dispute has already been settled now. It is also claimed that she has been living with her husband and leading her happy conjugal life and as such she may be allowed to compromise the case. 6. An application for compromise on behalf of the Informant has also been filed stating therein that due to intervention of some well wishers the dispute has already been settled now as well as both wife and husband are living together and as such both parties may be allowed to compromise this case. 7. 6. An application for compromise on behalf of the Informant has also been filed stating therein that due to intervention of some well wishers the dispute has already been settled now as well as both wife and husband are living together and as such both parties may be allowed to compromise this case. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as on behalf of the victim, Subhadra Devi fairly conceded in course of argument that there is no dispute now and both the husband and wife are residing happily and as such they may be allowed to compromise the case. Counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the case of Mahesh Chand and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 2111 and the case of Jal Prakash Chourasla v. State of Bihar, 1994 (1) East Cr Cases 396 (Pat). 8. Obviously, the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 498A, IPC which is not compoun-dable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the parties want to treat it a special case in view of the changed circumstances of the case as both parties have settled their dispute and also husband and wife are residing peacefully. 9. I have given anxious consideration of the case and also the plea put forward for seeking permission to compound the offence. In the changed circumstances, when both the husband and wife are living peacefully and also leading conjugal life happily, it would be appropriate and expedient in the interest of justice to accord permission to compound the offence after giving an opportunity to the parties. 10. I, accordingly, direct the learned trial Court to accord permission to compound the offence after giving an opportunity to the parties and after being satisfied with the compromise agreed upon, the case be disposed of accordingly, on the basis of the compromise. 11. Let the case be remitted to the trial Court for disposal according to the observations made above. With this observation/ direction, this revision is disposed of. 12. Revision disposed of.