Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings of Cr.Case No.398/2011 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Padampur, District Sriganganagar for the offences under Sections 420, 418 and 120B IPC on the ground of the compromise.
(2.) Learned counsel for the parties submit that the matter, which is essentially in the nature of a civil dispute in relation to the land transaction, has been compromised between the parties. The complainant respondent No.2 has submitted an application for compromise in the learned trial Court. The trial Court by order dated 4.7.2014 has accepted the said application only to the extent of Sections 420 and 418 IPC and has compounded the proceedings to that extent. So far as the offence under Section 120B IPC is concerned, the application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the offence under Section 120B IPC is non-compoundable. They thus submit that the proceedings should be quashed on the strength of the compromise.
(3.) In this view of the matter and looking to the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SC 426, it is apparent that further continuance of the proceedings going on against the petitioners in the learned trial Court cannot be said to be expedient in the interest of justice. If the proceedings are allowed to continue, it may result into the compromise being unsettled.;