1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 322/05 Harish Kumawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another Date of order : 16/04/2009 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr. O.P.Joshi for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Prajapat, Public Prosecutor By the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.1.2005 and order dated 5.3.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kuchaman City in Criminal Case No.09/2005. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders impugned. It appears that on a crime report lodged by the petitioner, the police investigated the matter and during the investigation, it appears that the parties compromised the matter and an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner complainant. On the basis of said affidavit, the police submitted negative final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Kuchaman City respondent No.2. Before accepting the final report, the respondent No.2 issued a notice under Section 340 Cr.P.C. requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the proceedings 2 under Section 193 Cr.P.C. be not initiated against him. I have gone through the copy of the affidavit and averments made therein. In my view, when the parties have compromised the matter and in order to settle the issue when the complainant has filed the affidavit, it cannot be said that the complainant has made deliberate attempt to make a false statement before the Court. It could have been more appropriate to have accepted the negative final report instead of issuing notice under Section 340 Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter, the order directing to initiate proceedings under Section 193 Cr.P.C. as also notice under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and calling a further explanation from the petitioner by order dated 5.3.2005 cannot sustain and are liable to be set aside. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 25.1.2005 and order directing to initiate proceeding under Section 193 Cr.P.C. as also the order dated 5.3.2005 requiring explanation from the petitioner are quashed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp