MOHD. ARIF & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor as also the learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the basic charge against them was for the offence under Sec. 420 Indian Penal Code. along with Sec. 120B Indian Penal Code. According to him, the parties have entered into the compromise under Sec. 420 Indian Penal Code. and accused petitioners have been acquitted for the said charge by the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Taranagar, Churu dated 30.6.2009 but the learned Magistrate has continued the proceeding under Sec. 120B Indian Penal Code. because the offence under Sec. 120B Indian Penal Code. is not compoundable. Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon the decision of this Court in Amit Kumar Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2006 (3) CJ (Raj) Cr 1401 that when the substantive offence has been compounded by the parties, the anciliary offence of conspiracy, abetment etc. should not be allowed to be continued, as it may result in deprivation of the parties to have their future relations cordial.

(3.) In the present case, the dispute was about taking money from the respondent No. 2 Abdul Hafeez for sending him to foreign country for the purpose of livelihood but due to some reasons, the deal could not be finalised and the money was re-paid by the petitioners. Now, both the parties have entered into the compromise and the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused-petitioners under Sec. 420 Indian Penal Code. but due to offence under Sec. 120B Indian Penal Code. being non-compoundable, the accused are facing trial for which the ultimate result would be acquittal.