Judgment :- The accused in C.C.No.159 of 2001 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Vellore were prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 498 (A) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. They were found guilty in respect of both the charges and convicted. Each one of the petitioners/accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC. For the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act each of the petitioners was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. No fine was imposed for the said offence. 2. As against the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioners herein preferred an appeal in C.A.No.137 of 2004 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore allowed the said appeal in part, confirming the conviction recorded by the trial Court in respect of both the offences. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioners/accused in respect of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was confirmed. The lower appellate Court modified the substantive sentence imposed on each one of the revision petitioners/accused for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and reduced the same into six months rigorous imprisonment from two years rigorous imprisonment. However, while reducing the substantive sentence, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, enhanced the fine amount for the said offence from Rs.500 to Rs.5,000/-. The learned Principal Sessions Judge also directed payment of Rs.8,000/-as compensation to the wife of the first petitioner herein out of the total fine amount of Rs.10,000/-to be collected from the revision petitioners/accused. 3. Questioning the correctness and legality of the said judgment of the lower appellate Court, the present criminal revision case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. 4. This Court heard the arguments advanced on both sides and perused the materials available on record. 5. The accused who were convicted by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are the petitioners in the present criminal revision case. This Court heard the arguments advanced on both sides and perused the materials available on record. 5. The accused who were convicted by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are the petitioners in the present criminal revision case. Pursuant to the alleged ill-treatment and harassment, demanding dowry, the defacto complainant who is none other than the wife of the first petitioner herein gave a complaint based on which, the criminal case was registered. The same ended in conviction before the trial Court. The conviction was confirmed but the sentence was modified by the lower appellate Court. After the present criminal revision case was admitted, the dispute between husband and wife was referred to the Lok Adalat held at Vellore and before the Lok Adalat, the husband (first petitioner) and wife (Prema-the defacto complainant) agreed for reunion. Pursuant to the settlement arrived at in the Lok Adalat held on 14.07.2006, Prema-defacto complainant filed an affidavit narrating the circumstances under which she preferred to settle the matter with her husband and mother-in-law who are the petitioners in this present criminal revision case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners in this revision case submitted that though the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable as per Section 320 Cr.P.C., considering the welfare of the defacto complainant (wife) the parties could be allowed to compound the offence by exercising the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in B.S.JOSHI vs. STATE OF HARAYANA reported in 2003 SCC (cri) 848 in support of his contention that even offences which are not shown to be compoundable in Section 320 Cr.P.C. can be allowed to be compounded in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. In the above said case, the accused therein approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the First Information Report based on the strength of an affidavit of the wife of the accused therein, who actually happened to be the defacto complainant, to the effect that the First Information Report had been registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations and that the dispute had been settled as she and her husband had agreed for mutual divorce. 9. It is obvious from the above said judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court even before completion of investigation and filing of final report (chargesheet), the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed supported by the affidavit of the defacto complainant. Only in the above said circumstances, the Honourable Supreme Court was inclined to quash the First Information Report in the said case. Even in the said case it has been observed that cases which do not come within the purview of Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to be compounded. 10. The offence alleged therein in the case before the Honourable Supreme Court were punishable under Sections 498 (A) and 406 IPC. Of course, the offence under Section 406 IPC, subject to the ceiling of the amount involved, is compoundable. So far as the cruelty to women punishable under Section 498(A) IPC is concerned, the same is not compoundable. When the said woman herself came forward with an affidavit that she had lodged the complaint due to temperamental differences and with implied imputations, and that subsequently she entered into a compromise with her husband pursuant to which they applied for mutual divorce, the Court could not expect any clear cut and positive evidence from her for the proof of the offence alleged. The said circumstances couple with the endeavor to see that the proceeding not be allowed to prevent the woman from settling earlier in her life seems to have made the Honourable Supreme Court to quash the First Information Report. The relevant part of the observation made by the Honourable Supreme Court in the said case is as follows:- "There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. The relevant part of the observation made by the Honourable Supreme Court in the said case is as follows:- "There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on the earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences? The answer clearly has to be in the "negative". It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides." Therefore, this Court is not in a position to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the defacto complainant and the revision petitioners could be allowed to compound the offence in the case on hand. On the other hand, the compromise and reunion shall be grounds on which reduction of sentence can be considered. 11. Referring to an earlier decision in G.V.RAO vs. L.H.V.PRASAD reported in 7 (2000) 3 SCC, in the above said judgment itself the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commissions of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought upon rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commissions of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought upon rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different Courts." The said observations are very much applicable to the facts of the case on hand also due to allege cruelty and harassment which are no doubt matrimonial dispute, the criminal case came to be registered against the revision petitioners. Of course, the case ended in conviction before the trial Court and the same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Now, after conviction, the revision petitioners/accused seems to have realised their mistake and agreed to give a new lease of marital life to PW1-defacto complainant. The said settlement has been arrived at before the Lok Adalat conducted on 14.07.2006 at Vellore. It has been reported that pursuant to the settlement the first petitioner herein and his wife (PW1) are living together as husband and wife. It is obvious that in case the petitioners are put behind the bars even after the settlement, the said settlement may eventually prove to be ineffective and unsuccessful in ensuring the defacto complainant an earlier settlement in her life. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that in view of the settlement arrived at in the Lok Adalat there is every justification for this Court to interfere with the quantum of sentence of imprisonment awarded by the lower appellate Court. 12. In the light of the above said observation made by the Honourable Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the conviction recorded by the Courts below cannot be set aside and that the interest of justice shall be met by modifying the sentence. 12. In the light of the above said observation made by the Honourable Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the conviction recorded by the Courts below cannot be set aside and that the interest of justice shall be met by modifying the sentence. Admittedly, the total fine amount of Rs.10,000/-was already collected from the revision petitioners (Rs.5,000/- each) and out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.8,000/- was paid to PW1-the defacto complainant as directed by the lower appellate Court. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by interfering with the said part of the sentence. This Court is of the considered view that substantive sentence of imprisonment can be modified by restricting the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the revision petitioners. 13. In the result, this criminal revision case is disposed of by reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment from six months to the period of imprisonment already undergone. Subject to the said modification, in all other respects, the judgment of the lower appellate Court shall stand confirmed.