B. R. ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated February 4, 1991, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur, by which the learned Magistrate refused to grant permission to compromise the matter.
(2.) SMT. Durga Devi, on June 6, 1982, filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur, against Amar Chand. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused alongwith his wife came to her house and asked her to give some ornaments as he alongwith his wife was going to Madras and his wife had no ornaments to wear and he, therefore, demanded the ornaments from the complainant. The accused was a partner in the business of the husband of the complainant and the complainant, on being assured that the ornaments will be returned back after their coming from Madras, the complainant gave her gold chain weighing 2 Tolas, ear-rings weighing 1/2 Tola and silver Paijebs weighing 8-Tolas to Amarchand, who gave the same to his wife. After their return from Madras, the accused did not return the ornaments back to the complainant. This complaint was sent by the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Mahamandir, Jodhpur, who after necessary investigation, presented the Final Report in the matter, but the learned Magistrate, however, did not accept the Final Report and took cognizance against the accused for the offence under Section 406 I. P. C. Both the parties, after when the cognizance was taken, compromised the matter and filed the compromise before the learned Magistrate and requested the Court to record to compromise. But the learned Magistrate, by his order dated February 4, 1991, refused to record the compromise as according to the learned lower Court, the alleged offence is not compoundable in view of the provisions of Section 320 Cr. P. C. It is against this order that the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed. The question, whether in exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C- the Court can grant permission for compromising the case ? The same question came-up for consideration before this Court in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 426 of 1989 (Krishna Kumar and others vs. the State of Rajasthan and other) and this Court, placing reliance over the judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered in Madhav Rao vs. Subha Rao (J) allowed the application to compound the matter and quashed the proceedings. While allowing the petition, the Court observed that as the matter has been compromised between the parties and, therefore, there are weak chances of criminal trial being converted in conviction. In the present case, when the parties have arrived at a compromise and as the matter has amicably been settled; the parties are known to each other much before and, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in not allowing the parties to compromise the matter. Consequently, in the special circumstances of the case, I allow the application filed by the parties to compound the case. As the matter has been compromised between the parties, therefore, the proceedings pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur, in Criminal Case No. 242 of 1980 (The State of Rajasthan vs. Amar Chand) are quashed. In the result, the miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed and the proceedings pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur, in Criminal Case No. 242 of 1980 are quashed. .;