RAJKUMAR KHATTAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular Case No. 295/2013 titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajkumar Khattad (arising out of FIR No. 29/2013 of Police Station, Sardarpura, District Jodhpur), whereby the trial court vide order dated 16.10.2014 has attested the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC as the same is not compoundable.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2 before the trial court, the same has been forwarded to the concerned Police Station. The Police Station, Sardarpura, Jodhpur has registered an FIR No. 29/2013 against the petitioner and after investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC in the trial court wherein the trial is pending against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. During the pendency of the trial, an application was preferred on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 while stating that both the parties have entered into compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner may be terminated. The trial court vide order dated 16.10.2014 allowed the parties to compound the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, however, rejected the application so far it relates to compounding the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the complainant -respondent No. 2 and the petitioner have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioner has already been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.