R. S. VERMA, J. - (1.) LOOKING to the short point involved, the matter has been heard finally at the admission stage.
(2.) IT appears that the present petitioners were being prosecuted for offences under sections 323, 341, 427, 452,/295 (A), I. P. C and. 4/7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh, on the F. I. R. lodged at the instance of one Dhanraj Meghwal. The petitioner entered into a compromise with aforesaid Dhanraj and filed the same in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 15. 1. 91 and inter alia stated that all the parties are of the same village and the responsible persons of the village had intervened in the matter and because of such intervention the parties have compromised their disputes. IT was, therefore, prayed that the compromise may be attested. The learned Magistrate attested the compromise and acquitted the accused-petitioners of offences u/s 323, 341, 427 I. P. C. He, however, did not allow the case to be compromised for offences u/s 452, 295-A and for offence u/s 4/7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act on the ground that such offences were not compoundable. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner as also the complainant are of the same village. The village elders get resolved the dispute between the parties, with the result that the parties entered into a compromise. He submits that if the compromise is not given effect fully, it will lead to further disharmony between the parties. He submits that looking to the peculier facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh be directed to allow the application of compromise of the petitioner in its entirety. He has placed reliance upon in this connection Smt. Saroj vs. State of Raj. (1) and Shiv Nath vs. State of Raj. (2 ). The learned public prosecutor very fairly and frankly conceded that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh should have allowed the parties to compromise the entire matter. I have considered the submissions made before me as also two rulings cited before me. The Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, directed the trial court to accept compromise to compound the offence even when the offence was for offences u/s 307, I. P. C. which was not compoundable. Following this, dictum, Shiv Nath's case (supra) was decided by this Court and the parties were allowed to compound even then such offences which were not compoundable.- The same was in the case of Smt. Saroj (supra ). In the facts and circumstances of the case no useful purpose would be served by 'allowing the proceedings to continue against the petitioners for offences u/s 452, 295-A and for offences u/s 4/7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, particularly when the aggrieved person Dhanraj had compromised the entire matter with the accused persons.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is accepted and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to accept the compromise of the parties in its entirety and pass necessary consequential orders. The petition is disposed of as indicated above. .;