JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is present in person. The complainant Smt. Namita Das is also present in person, who has been identified by her counsel Shri R.P. Choudhary. 3. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.1.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Kota in Criminal Appeal No. 24/2003 whereby he has rejected the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 4.8.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Kota (North) in Criminal Case No. 1369/2000 whereby he convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Section 498-A I.P.C. for six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the parties have entered into a compromise and a written compromise dated 10.2.2004 duly signed by the complainant Smt. Namita Das has also been filed on record. The applicant has minor son aged about nine years. The parties have sorted all their differences and they are now leaving together for the last about one year. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Rajeshwari v. Devanand & Ors, reported in 1997(2) WLC (Raj.) 364 wherein the trial court did not attest to the compromise for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. that it is not compoundable. However, this Court directed the trial court to permit the parties to compound the offence under Sections 406 & 498A I.PC. learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : "There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent, power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the aforesaid two judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has argued that this petition for the compromise may be treated as petition under Section 482 Cr.RC. and while exercising inherent powers should permit both the parties to compound the offences. 6. In view of the above, I allow the application for compromise and permit the parties to compound the offences. Consequently, I allow this revision petition and set aside the judgments passed by both the courts below.Revision Allowed as above. *******