^ HIGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: Criminal Misc; Petition No.338 of 2010 Vijay Kumar, S/o Lallu Prasad Awadhiya, aged about 30 years, R/o Qtr. No.13-B, Road No.12, Sector-7 Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Durg, DistrictDurg (C.G.) 2. Pawan Kumar Pathak, S/o Krishna Pathak, aged about 33 years, R/o Qtr. No.E.W.S. 945, Aditya Nagar, P.S. Supela, Durg, District Durg(C.G.) {Application under Section 482 ofCr.P.C.} Present: Mr. C.K. Sahu, counsel forthe petitioner. Mr. R.R. Sinha, Panel LawyerfortheState/respondentNo.1. Sinale Bench:Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma^ J ORALORDER (7-1-2011) 1. Heard. 2. This petition under Section 482 of the CrPC is for directing the concerned Lok Adalat to adjoin Section 427 of the IPC along with other charges under Sections 294, 5Q6 & 323 of the IPC in the order dated 8- 1-2006 passed in Criminal Case No.443/2004. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has entered into compromise with th&complainant in Criminal Case No.443/2004 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, Durg in LokAdalat and on the basis of compromise, vide order dated 8-1-2006 the Lok Adalat has acquitted the petitioner ofthe charge under Sections 294, 506 & 323ofthe IPC and dropped criminal prosecution pending againstthe petitioner i.e. nothing is pending against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitionerseeks to withdraw this petition. 4. In the light of orderdated 8-1-2006 passed in the Lok Adalat, the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 294, 506 & 323 ofthe IPC and the Court has dropped proceeding against the petitioner, though charge under Section 427 of the IPC has also been f. Som3 framed against the petitioner. Virtually, Section 427 of the IPC was not compoundable and, therefore, compromise was not possible. After compromise of the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 & 323 of the IPC, only trial under Section 427 of the IPC remains which was admittedly a summon trial. The Courthasdropped proceedings against the petitioner and it appears that after compromise between the parties relating to main offence, the trial Court has dropped proceeding under Section 258 of the CrPC for which the Couri: was competent. 5. In thesecircumstances, the petition isdismissed aswithdrawn. Sd/- i T.P. Sharma Judge