ANIL KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both, Petitioners and non-Petitioner complainant are present in the Court and duly identified by their respective counsel.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) The Petitioners are facing trial before the learned Addl. Judl. Magistrate (Jr. Dn.) No. 2, Jodhpur for offences under Sections 406 and 498A I.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 402/2010 as a sequel to the complaint of non-Petitioner No. 2 Reema Bansal. Case of the Petitioners is that in the criminal case arising out of FIR No. 120/2009, P.S. Mahila Thana, Jodhpur, challan was filed against the Petitioners before the trial Court. Trial Court registered Case No. 402/2010 against the Petitioners for offences under Section 498A and 406, I.P.C., in which, after compromise, an application seeking permission from the Court to compromise the matter was filed along with the compromise deed for compounding the offences in view of the compromise arrived at in between the parties. Vide the impugned order dated 08.12.2010, the learned Addl. Judl. Magistrate accepted the compromise in respect of offence under Section 406, I.P.C. and granted permission to the parties to compound the offence; but, in respect of offence punishable under Section 498A, I.P.C. the learned Magistrate rejected the application for compounding the offence because as per Section 320, Code of Criminal Procedure said offence is not compoundable.