M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have filed this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 14,2.2005 passed by S.D.J.M. Giridih in Complaint Case No. l 114/2004 whereby he has rejected the petition filed by the petitioners praying therein to accept the joint petition of compromise filed by the petitioners and opposite party No. 2 complainant as the offence in which cognizance was taken, was compoundable without permission of the court.
(2.) OPPOSITE Party No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) lodged a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih against the petitioners for taking cognizance under Section 500 I.P.C. The complainant alleged inter alia that the petitioners filed Title Suit No. 26 of 2001 against the complainant and others in respect of some lands of Shastri Nagar, Giridih. In the plaint the petitioners alleged that the locality where the suit land situate has developed much and has been named as Shastri Nagar Mohalla, Giridih. Hence dishonest persons and law breakers have been indulging in all sorts of criminalities and hooliganism and as such all the properties of the landlord are at peril in the hands of such unscrupulous persons. It was further alleged that such defamatory imputation concerning the complainant intending to harm or knowing reasons to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant as Advocate in his profession and in His social life as social worker has defamed the complainant for which petitioners have committed offence of defaming the complainant under Section 500 I.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under Section 500 I.P.C. against the petitioners and transferred the case to the S.D.J.M. Giridih for trial. During the pendency of the case a joint petition of compromise was filed by the petitioners and the complainant in the court of S.D.J.M. Giridih on 4.11.2003 with a prayer to accept the compromise petition filed by the parties and to acquit the petitioners as the offence is compoundable without permission of the court. It was stated by the petitioners that the compromise petition should have been accepted by the Court as soon as the same was tiled but the same remain pending in the court for acceptance. Hence the petitioners filed a petition in the court below praying to accept the compromise petition, which was filed on 4.11.2003. However, the complainant thereafter filed rejoinder petition whereby he resiled from the compromise and prayed to the court to proceed with the case. The S.D.J.M. rejected the petition by passing the impugned order and refused to accept the compromise on the ground of rejoinder filed by the complainant.
(3.) I have learned Counsel for the petitioner. Inspite of service of notice neither the complainant nor any lawyer appeared on his behalf nor any counter affidavit has been filed.;