GOVIND PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application had been moved in this Court under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. by the accused-petitioners against the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated 21-4-90 whereby he had refused to record a compromise in the case as offence alleged against the accused are non-compoundable. Notice of the petitioner was issued to the complainant non-petitioners and they appeared before this Court. The parties were present in this Court on 27-8-90 and learned brother Honourable NL Tibrewal J., directed the parties to file a fresh petition before the Additional Registrar (Judl.), who was directed to verify the compromise, if presented before him. In compliance of the order of the Court, the Additional Registrar has verified the compromise which is on record. The said compromise is accompanied with the affidavits of the complainant party. According to the affidavit, all the parties on either side, who are relations, have fully and thoroughly settled amicably all the disputes and nothing remains pending.

(2.) In view of the aforesaid affidavits and the compromise deed, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that permission to compound the offence may kindly be granted. My attention was drawn to my earlier decision passed in Ram Kishore Vs. State of Rajasthan (SB Cr. Misc. Petition No. 184/89 decided on 14-3-89 ) whereby the learned trial Court was directed to accord permission to compound the offence in terms of the application presented before that Court. The decision was based on the decision of their Lordships of Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (AIR 1988 SC 2111 ). Since after this decision, I happened to consider the case again in Mahendra Kumar Vs. State (SB Cr. Misc. Petition No. 261/90 decided on 3-9-90 ). Had the petitioner been filed in this Court with the prayer for setting aside the order of the trial Court refusing to compound the offence, possibly this Court may not quash that order in view of the fact that there is no illegality in the order as such. This court has no jurisdiction, express or implied, to convert a non-compoundable offence into a compoundable one. However, in extra ordinary circumstances to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice so that unnecessary litigation may not be continued in court of law since the laws are enacted not only to punish the guilty but at times the rigour of law is to yield for maintenance of the harmony between the parties more so in matrimonial cases. As the compromise has been tiled in this Court also and same has been recorded and complainant does not intend to persuade the remedy, it would be futile to continue the litigation any further and, therefore, in the inherent powers of this Court, it is considered proper that ends of justice would be secured in case the proceedings pending in criminal case No. 12/89 State Vs. Shanker Lal in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur are quashed. The proceedings are accordingly quashed. Accused are on bail. They need not surrender bail bonds.