ARMAN HUSAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dtd. 29/8/2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilara whereby the learned Judge while deciding the application under Sec. 320 Cr.P.C. has compounded the offence under Sec. 420 IPC but refused to compound the offences under Ss. 193, 171(Cha), 201, 467, 471 and 120B IPC on the basis of compromise.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has already been compromised between the parties and it is borne out from the compromise that respondent No. 2-complainant is not inclined to proceed further in the matter. Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. In these circumstances, the aforesaid offences may be compounded and the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 2- complainant against the petitioner may be quashed.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent No. 2-complainant concurs the fact of compromise and submits that in view of the compromise, the respondent No. 2-complainant does not want to proceed further in the matter.