Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing the proceedings pending against them before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara, District Rajsamnd (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No. 608/2010 (State Vs. Kamlesh & Anr.), whereby the trial court vide order dated 02.08.2013 has attested the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. but refused to attest the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 498 -A I.P.C. as the same is not compoundable.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that a complaint, lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2 before the trial court, was forwarded to the Police Station, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand under Section 156(3) and the police registered the FIR No. 202/2010 against the petitioners. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A and 406 I.P.C. 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 02.08.2013 allowed the parties to compound the offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C., however, rejected the application so far it relates to compounding the offence punishable under Section 498 -A I.P.C. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the said proceedings against them.
(3.) 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 already been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C., there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498 -A I.P.C. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No. 2 has remarried with someone else. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498 -A I.P.C. because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.;