Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.@mdashSmt. Jyotsna Pal, the opposite party No. 1 in this revisional application filed a complaint against her
husband, Sunil Kumar Pal, alleging offence u/s 494 of the Indian Penal Code and against twenty-three others u/s 494/109 of the Indian Penal
Code for abetment of the said offence committed by Sunil Pal. During the course of the proceeding, the complainant compromised the case with
her husband, Sunil Pal and some of the other accused persons and the learned Magistrate allowed the said compromise and acquitted them u/s
320 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The other accused persons who were still awaiting trial u/s 494/109 I. P. C. have now moved this
Court for quashing the proceeding in view of the compromise effected with Sunil Kumar Pal, who allegedly committed the offence u/s 494 I. P. C.
the proceeding cannot be further continued against the petitioners u/s 494|109 I. P. C. I find much substance in the contention of the petitioners.
Offence u/s 494 I. P. C. can be committed by a husband, who has married for the second time and by no body else, that necessarily means, that
once a case is compromised with the husband and he earns an order of acquittal u/s 320 (8) Cr. P. C. the offence itself for all intents and purpose
stands wiped out and consequently there cannot be any scope for abetment of an offence which in the eye of law was not committed at any point
of time in view of the acquittal recorded against the husband. For the foregoing discussion, I allow this application and make this Rule absolute.
The impugned proceeding is quashed.
