JUDGMENT :

VIJAY BISHNOI, J.

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the proceedings pending against him before the Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Criminal Original Case No. 1017/2010 (arising out of FIR No. 68/2010 of Police Station Kalandri, District Sirohi), whereby the trial court vide order dated 01.11.2021 has attested the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471/109 IPC as the same is not compoundable.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2, the Police Station Kalandri District Sirohi has registered the FIR No. 68/2010 against the petitioner. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471/109 IPC in the trial court wherein the trial is pending against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. During the pendency of the trial, an application was preferred on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 while stating that both the parties have entered into compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner may be terminated. The learned trial court vide order dated 01.11.2021 allowed the parties to compound the offence under Section 420 IPC, however, rejected the application so far as it relates to compounding the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471/109 IPC.

3. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the said proceedings against him.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the complainant-respondent No. 2 and the petitioner have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioner has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471/109 IPC. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471/109 IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and the respondent No. 2 does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471/109 IPC.

6. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 29.09.2021 rendered in Ramgopal & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1489/2012) along with Krishnappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1488/2012), after taking into consideration its earlier decisions rendered in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and several other judgments has held as under:-

"19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relev