1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T Hanuman Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.532/2009. UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22ND APRIL, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.P.PATHAK Mr. Anoop Dhand for the petitioners. Mr. Bhuvnish Kumawat Public Prosecutor for State of Rajasthan. BY THE COURT: Issue notice to the respondent. Notice is accepted by the learned public prosecutor and the counsel for the accused. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been taken up for final disposal. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case in Sessions Case No.2/2006 and 60/2008, the trial is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Sikar for the offences under sections 447, 427, 341, 336, 323, 323/34, 325 and 325/34 IPC. It is contended by the learned counsel that in the instant case application under section 320 Cr.P.C. was jointly moved by the petitioners and the accused. The learned trial court though compounded all offences relating to the case pending trial but in relation to offence under section 336 IPC, finding that it was not 2 compoundable, rejected the application. It is contended that all parties are present in the court today and they do not want to pursue the matter any further. It is also contended that in relation to section 325 IPC, the matter has been compromised between the parties. In relation to offence under section 336 IPC it is contended by the learned counsel that it relates to the commission of offence of pelting stones, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter alive for trial. It is also contended that keeping the criminal proceedings pending is an abuse of the process of court, therefore, this court under the inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. should quash the proceedings pending before the trial court. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another- (2008)9 SCC 677 and Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab- (2008)4 SCC 582. On the other hand, learned public prosecutor contended that the offence being not compoundable, the trial court has correctly rejected the application and the orders passed by the trial court are proper and the trial is liable to continue against the accused. Learned counsel for the accused submits that in the instant case all offences in relation to FIR No.69/2006 have been compromised with the permission of the court and the only offence which remains is under section 336 IPC, therefore, the 3 criminal proceedings require to be quashed as continuation of the criminal proceedings would be the sheer wastage of time of the court. After having considered the submissions made before me and the authorities cited before me, what I find is that in almost all the offences the parties have compromised and the facts of the case are such where several accused are facing trial and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings alive as it will amount to abuse of process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, I deem it proper to quash the proceedings pending before the trial court. In the result, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Sikar in Sessions Case No.2/2006 and 60/2008 are set aside and the criminal proceedings pending before the said trial court are quashed. (S.P.PATHAK) J.