STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MOOLA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing the instant criminal appeal, the State has made challenge to the order dtd. 2/1/1990 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in criminal regular case No.264/1989 whereby the learned Magistrate allowed the application for compromise and acquitted the accused-respondent from the charge under Sec. 429 of the IPC by compounding the offence.

(2.) The sum and substance of the State s plea would be that the party who entered into compromise with the accused-respondent was not a competent person to make a plea for compounding the offence. It is their case that the goats were belonging to one Bhuraram, however, the compromise in this case was executed by one Ramaram who happened to be the first informant of the case. It is their plea that in cognizable offences, the first informant may be termed as complainant; however, when it comes to the question of compounding an offence, only the person who is competent as envisaged under Sec. 320 of the Cr.P.C. can move an application for compounding the offence. The learned Magistrate attested the compromise entered into between accused Mularam and the complainant Ramaram, and on the basis of such compromise, acquitted the accused-respondent from the charges under Sec. 429 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) Since no one was present for the respondent, this Court appointed Mr. Tananjay Parmar as amicus curiae. He was given sufficient time to go through the file for a considerable period and whereafter heard this submission canvased on his behalf.