MOOLA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners against the order 19.11.2014, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Criminal Regular Case No. 261/2010 (State of Rajasthan vs. Moola Ram & Ors.) arising out of FIR No. 98/2007 dated 14.08.2007 of Police Station, Sirohi, whereby the trial court has attested the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B IPC as the same are not compoundable.

(2.) IN the instant case the respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the same is forwarded to the concerned police station. The Police Station, Sirohi has registered the FIR No. 98/2007 dated 14.08.2007 against the petitioners. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B IPC in the trial court, wherein the trial is pending against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. During the pendency of the trial, an application was preferred on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 2 while stating that the parties have entered into compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioners may be terminated. The trial court vide order dated 19.11.2014 allowed the parties to compound the offence under Section 420 IPC, however, rejected the application so far it relates to compounding the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B IPC.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the complainant -respondent No. 2 and the petitioners have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioners have already been acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B IPC. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.