HANUMAN PRASAD & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue notice to the respondent. Notice is accepted by the learned public prosecutor and the counsel for the accused.

(2.) At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been taken up for final disposal.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case in Sessions Case No.2/2006 and 60/2008, the trial is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Sikar for the offences under sections 447, 427, 341, 336, 323, 323/34, 325 and 325/34 IPC. It is contended by the learned counsel that in the instant case application under section 320 Crimial P.C. was jointly moved by the petitioners and the accused. The learned trial court though compounded all offences relating to the case pending trial but in relation to offence under section 336 IPC, finding that it was not compoundable, rejected the application. It is contended that all parties are present in the court today and they do not want to pursue the matter any further. It is also contended that in relation to section 325 IPC, the matter has been compromised between the parties. In relation to offence under section 336 Indian Penal Code it is contended by the learned counsel that it relates to the commission of offence of pelting stones, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter alive for trial. It is also contended that keeping the criminal proceedings pending is an abuse of the process of court, therefore, this court under the inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. should quash the proceedings pending before the trial court. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another- (2008)9 SCC 677 and Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab- (2008)4 SCC 582 .