1. - By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code" hereinafter), the petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.03.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Churu (for short, 'the trial Court' hereinafter) whereby the trial Court declined to compound the offence under Section 406 IPC.

2. The facts of the case, succintly stated, are that a crime report was lodged by first informant Ram Kumar with the Police Station, Dudhwakhara, district Churu, stating therein that the proprietor of Rajasthan Travels, Mangal Bhawan, Lai Ghantagar, Churu, used to send the persons to abroad for job. The first informant, being an unemployed person, on contracting the 1 petitioners, was assured for a job at Katar on the monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/- Reyals and he was asked to deposit Rs. 70,000/-. Though he was sent to Katar by air after certain formalities with regard to passport and VISA but after working for two months with H.D.K. Company at Katar, the said company refused to keep him any further on the ground that his VISA has already expired. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC.

3. After recording of the evidence and the statement of the accused-petitioners under Section 313 of the Code, both the parties filed a compromise before the trial Court for compounding the offences, however, the trial Court, vide impugned order dated 25.03.2008, allowed the parties to compound the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B, IPC and acquitted the accused-petitioners of these offences; however declined to compound the offence under Section 406 IPC. Hence this criminal miscellaneous petition.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the parties that the property, of which the first informant alleged the misappropriation, has been returned to the first informant and the first informant has resolved the dispute with the accused-petitioners and now there remains nothing outstanding, therefore, the compromise was filed before the trial Court along with an application under Section 320 of the Code seeking compounding of the offence but the trial Court declined to compound the offence under Section 406 IPC on the ground that it has no such power.

5. In B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 579 : 2003 SCC (Cri.) 848 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.PC. would not be bar to the exercise of power of quashing the FIR. The Apex Court further observed that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 Cr.PC. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier and that is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the IPC.

6. In Mohd. Shamim & Ors. v. Nahid Begum & Anr., 2005(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 281 : 2005 AIR SCW 332 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the offence under Section 406 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court.

7. In R. Rajeshwari v. H.N. Jagdish, 2008 AIR SCW 2079 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for compounding the offence, the application for compounding the offence need not be supported by an affidavit of the complainant or accused and the counsel for the parties can enter into such settlement which would be binding on the parties by reason of the authority granted by the litigant in favour of his Advocate which, inter alia, empowers the latter to enter into a settlement; provided that the party was not adverse to the idea of compromise.

8. In Ganpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2008(1) R.Cr.D. 288 (Raj.) , this Court held that when the parties have settled the dispute amicably and there remains