AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

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 him before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular Case No. 71/2015 (State of Rajasthan v. Amar Singh), whereby the trial court vide order dated 15.06.2015 has attested the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 467, 467 and 471 IPC as the same are not compoundable.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that in the instant case the respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint in the trial court and the same is forwarded to the Police Station, Ratanada, District Jodhpur. After investigation, the police has filed charge -sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 420, 384, 467, 468 and 471 IPC in the trial court wherein the trial is pending against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. 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 15.06.2015 allowed the parties to compound the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, however, rejected the application so far it relates to compounding the offences punishable under Sections 384, 467, 467 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 been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 467, 467 and 471 IPC. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, the petitioner has been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.09.2015 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Fourth Bail Application No. 8089/2015 (Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan). It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 467, 467 and 471 IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.