JUDGMENT : G.B. Shah, J. 1. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.06.1999, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. XIV, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 119 of 1997, whereby, the appellant herein original accused came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for fifteen days. Accordingly, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant original accused against conviction. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that one Ismailbhai Yasinbhai Dholajiwala had lodged a compliant Exh. 32 that his sister Jenab @ Kaluben had poured kerosene and set herself on fire due to harassment and cruelty caused to her by her mother-in-law, the appellant-herein. 3. Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Sessions Court. The trial Court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. In order to bring home the charge against the original accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence. At the end of the trial, Further Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Code') was recorded in which she denied the evidence and stated that a false case has been filed against her. Thus, after recording above-referred Further Statement and hearing the arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused, as aforesaid, by impugned judgment and order, giving rise to prefer the present appeal. 4. Heard Mr. M.M. Tirmizi, the learned advocate for the appellant accused and Mr. K.L. Pandya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 4.1. At the outset, the complainant who is brother of the deceased Jenab @ Kaluben namely Ismailbhai Yasinbhai Dhorajiwala, the father of the complainant Yasinbhai Ganibhai Dhorajiwala and mother of the complainant Jetunbibi wife of Yasinbhai Dhorajiwala as well as sister of the complainant Mosina D/o. Yasinbhai Dholajiwala are present in the Court. 4.1. At the outset, the complainant who is brother of the deceased Jenab @ Kaluben namely Ismailbhai Yasinbhai Dhorajiwala, the father of the complainant Yasinbhai Ganibhai Dhorajiwala and mother of the complainant Jetunbibi wife of Yasinbhai Dhorajiwala as well as sister of the complainant Mosina D/o. Yasinbhai Dholajiwala are present in the Court. They have filed affidavit themselves which are annexed with the appeal. Mr. M.M. Tirmizi, the learned advocate for the appellant-convict by inviting attention to the aforesaid affidavits, submitted that the parties are in good terms of each other and Mohsinabanu who is sister of the complainant got married with the younger son of the appellant namely Imtiaz in the year 2000. She is staying in joint family with the appellant and she is living happy and peaceful life with her in-laws and now, no grievance is survived between them. Moreover, he submitted that it was a matrimonial dispute which has resulted into such a happening and under the circumstances, without arguing the matter on merits, he requested to allow the aforesaid compromise and considering the peculiar circumstances narrated above set aside the sentence in the interest of justice. 5. As against this, Mr. Pandya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State, submitted that though the offence for which the accused has been charged, is not compoundable, however, it being a matrimonial dispute which had taken such a shape and as the parties have arrived at a settlement and now, no grievance is stated to be survived between the parties, he requested to pass the appropriate orders. However, he requested that the same may not be treated as a precedent. 6. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties and gone through the matter carefully. I have also perused the affidavits respectively filed by the complainant, his father and mother and his sister. From the facts of the case, it appears that the matrimonial dispute has taken such a shape and now, the matter is settled between the parties and no grievance is stated to be survived between them. Complainant Ismailbhai Yasinbhai Dhorajiwala as well as his parents and sister referred herein above are present before the Court and they substantiated the aforesaid fact of amicable settlement between them. Complainant Ismailbhai Yasinbhai Dhorajiwala as well as his parents and sister referred herein above are present before the Court and they substantiated the aforesaid fact of amicable settlement between them. Under the circumstances, without going into the merits of the case and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit to allow the aforesaid compromise by allowing the present appeal in part, by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone. However, it is made clear that present order is being passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the same shall not be treated as precedent. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present appeal succeeds in part and the impugned judgment and order dated 15.06.1999, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. XIV, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 119 of 1997 is modified to the extent that the sentence imposed by the trial Court upon the appellant is reduced to the period she has already undergone. The appellant is reported to be on bail and accordingly, she needs not to surrender to custody, except she is required in any other case. Her bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The rest of the judgment and order shall remain unaltered. Registry to return the R&P to the trial Court forthwith. It is clarified that this order being passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the same shall not be treated as precedent.