S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition NO. 1001/2010 Joginder Singh Sehgal & Ors. VS. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of order: 26.05.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. PS Shukla } Mr. SC Goyal }, for the petitioner. Mr. GS Rathore, PP, for the State. Mr. TC Sharma, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. **** By way of this criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have implored to quash the proceedings pending before the court of Special, Judicial Magistrate, N.I. Act Cases No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that both the parties have entered into a compromise as per the terms and conditions of the compound petition. Complainant party did not want to prosecute the petitioners, hence, the proceedings be quashed. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Manoj Sharma vs. State and others, reported in (2008) 16 SCC 1. 4. Learned counsel for the non- petitioner Nos.2 & 3 has not opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. -2- 5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has also not opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. E Converso, learned counsel for the non-petitioner No.2 & 3 has also conceded this fact that both the parties have compromised and he did want to continue with the prosecution of the petitioners. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma (supra) has observed thus: “Despite the above decisions this Court in B.S. Joshi case relying on its own decision in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy observed that the High Court under Section 482 CrPC can quash the criminal proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that the ends of justice so require e.g. Where there would almost be no chance of conviction. In a case under Section 498-A IPC if the parties enter into a compromise the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak, and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. They should, therefore, be quashed by exercising power under Section 482 CrPC. The Court also relied on the decisions in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad for taking the same view.” -3- 8. In view of above observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in the case of Manoj Sharma (supra) and the fact that both the parties have compromised, the proceedings pending in the court of Special, Judicial Magistrate, N.I. Act Cases No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in criminal case No. 292/2009 deserves to be quashed, which stands quashed accordingly, in respect of accused persons namely Joginder Singh Sehgal, Gulshanbir Singh, Smt. Paramjeet Kaur and Shri SS Ahuja. 9. The criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. pcg