Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the proceedings pending against them before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Original Case No. 329/2006 (25/2014) (State Vs. Kundanlal & Anr.), whereby the trial court vide order dated 23.11.2013 has attested the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offences punishable under Section 326 and 498 -A IPC as the same are not compoundable.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on the complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2, the FIR No. 278/2005 has been registered at Police Station, Bhupalpura, District Udaipur against the petitioners. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326 and 498 -A IPC in the trial court wherein the trial is pending against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. During the pendency of the trial, an application was preferred on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 2 while stating that both the parties have entered into compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioners may be terminated. The trial court vide order dated 23.11.2013 allowed the parties to compound the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, however, rejected the application so far it relates to compounding the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 498 -A IPC. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the said proceedings against them.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the complainant -respondent No. 2 and the petitioners have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioners have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 498 -A IPC. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the parties have decided to live separately by mutual consent and in this regard a joint application under Section 13 -B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing Case No. 325/2013 has already been filed and the same is resulted into divorce decree by the Family Court, Udaipur. Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a certified copy of the statement of injured -respondent No. 2 recorded before the trial court and contended that the injured -respondent No. 2 in her statement has clearly stated that the compromise has been arrived at between her and the accused -petitioners and now she does not want to prosecute the accused -petitioners further in any case and she has further stated in her statement that the accused -petitioners have not assaulted her for dowry. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 498 -A IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.;