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 Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Osian, District Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular Case No. 220/2013 (State of Rajasthan v. Banshi Lal & Ors.), whereby the trial court vide order dated 10.02.2015 has attested the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120 -B 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 in the trial court the same has been forwarded to the concerned police station for registration of an FIR and conducting investigation. After registration of an FIR and conducting investigation, the police has filed charge sheet against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120 -B 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 10.02.2015 allowed the parties to compound the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 IPC, however, rejected the application so far it relates to compounding the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120 -B 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 has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 419 and 420 IPC, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120 -B IPC. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120 -B IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.;