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 the petitioners before the Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Case No. 1458/2010 (State of Rajasthan v. Arun Singhvi & Anr.), whereby the trial court vide order dated 12.01.2015 has attested the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 498 -A IPC as the same is not compoundable.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2, the police has registered an FIR at Police Station, Women, Jodhpur against the petitioners. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498A IPC in the trial court wherein the trial is pending against the petitioners for the aforesaid offence. 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 12.01.2015 allowed the parties to compound the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, however, rejected the application so far it relates to compounding the offence punishable under Section 498 -A IPC. 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 been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498 -A IPC. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 have decided to live separately by mutual consent and in this regard a divorce application has already been filed by the parties and the same is pending adjudication before the family court. 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 IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.;