MAHAVEER PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Mahaveer Prasad and C. P. Vasnaiye are facing trial under Sections 332 and 324 I. P. C. in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur, Durga Dutt, on June 16, 1984 lodged a First information Report at Police Station. Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur against C. P. Vasnaiye and Mahaveer Prasad under Sections 353 and 332 I. P. C. THE police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against both the accused in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur, under Section 324 and 332 I. P. C. On the submission of the challan, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Jodhpur, on July 21, 1984, ordered for the registration of the case. After the submission of the challan, the accused petitioner moved an application under Section 197 Cr. P. C. that as they are the 'public servants' and, therefore, their prosecution without prior sanction from the competent authority is without jurisdiction. That application, filed under Section 197 Cr. P. C, filed by the petitioners, was dismissed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur, by his order dated January 4, 1988. Dissatisfied with the order dated January 4, 1983, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur, rejecting the application under Sec. 197 Cr. P. C, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, who by his order dated May 27, 1988, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners. It is against this order, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, that the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed.

(2.) DURING the course of arguments, the parties have filed a compromise arrived at between them and have stated that the matter between the parties has amicably been settled and the complaint has now no grievance against the accused and the matter may be disposed of as the same has been compromised. Though the offence under Section 332 I. P. C, is not compoundable but offence under Sec. 324 is compoundable only with the permission of the Court. As both the parties have compromised the matter between themselves and the accused and the complainant are working in the same department and are educated persons, therefore, looking to the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence was committed, I think it proper to allow the parties to compound the offence.