ASHOK KUMAR Vs. THE 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 him before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadul Shahar, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular Case No.464/2008 (C.I.S. No.1047/2014) - State Vs. Ashok Kumar whereby, the trial court vide order dated 9.9.2017 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 465 , 468 and 471 IPC as the same are not compoundable.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No.2, the Police Station Lalgarh Jatan, District Sri Ganganagar has registered an FIR No.69/1996 against the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner took a loan against Bus No.RJ-13-P-0603 and that was hypothecated with the bank but without taking permission or re-payment of loan, sold it to one Puran Chand, through an agreement stating that the amount of bank has been repaid, but in fact the amount was not repaid till 5.3.1996 i.e. the day of execution of agreement and, thus, forging letter in the name of respondent No.2 - complainant obtained a duplicate Registration Certificate.

(3.) After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420 , 406 , 465 , 468 and 471 IPC in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadul Shahar, District Sri Ganganagar wherein, the trial is pending against the petitioner. 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 learned trial court vide order dated 9.9.2017 allowed the parties to compound the offences under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C., however, rejected the application so far as it relates to compounding the offences under Sections 465 , 468 and 471 IPC.