LIKAYAT MIYA Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking for quashment of the order dated 03.12.2015 whereby the court below has refused to compound the offence registered against the petitioners for the offence under Section 120-B IPC in respect of the fact that the substantive offence registered against the petitioners under Sections 419 and 420 IPC has been allowed to be compounded on 19.10.2015.

(2.) Originally the petitioners were proceeded with the offence under Sections 419,420 and 120-B IPC. Pending the trial, the parties had entered into compromise and had moved an application under Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C. for compounding the said offences. The court below, vide order dated 19.10.2015 permitted the petitioners to compound the offence under Sections 419 and 420 IPC, but refused to compound the offence under Section 120-B IPC stating it to be beyond its competence. Against the said order dated 19.10.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti, the petitioners also preferred a revision petition before the court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, who also, in turn, vide impugned order dated 03.12.2015 has rejected the revision upholding the order dated 19.10.2015 and directed for proceedings of criminal case against the petitioners for the offence under Section 120-B IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assailing both the orders dated 19.10.2015 and 03.12.2015 submits that proceedings with criminal case against the petitioners is bad in law for the reason that since the main offence under Sections 419 and 420 IPC have already been permitted to be compounded and petitioners have been discharged from the said offence vide order dated 19.10.2015. The case under Section 120-B IPC independently cannot servive. If the main offence itself does not survive any longer, the question of proceeding with the petitioners for the other offence i.e. under Section 120-B IPC would not be proper, legal and justified.