JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sri Madhopur dated 29.7.89 framing charge against the accused-petitioners for offences under section 120-B, 467, 471 and 420 IPC. 2. This case has a chequered history a .d present facts exhibit as to how the mockery of justice is being made by dragging the parties into criminal cases. 3. In village Khandala, there are two agricultural lands adjoining each other, one bearing khasra No. 845 and another 846 A strange co-incidence is that the khatedar tenants of both these Khasras happened to bear the same name viz., Ruda and their fathers names have a phonetic similarity. The Khatedar tenant of Khasra No. 845 is Ruda son of Deva while that of Khasra No. 846 is Ruda s/o Mahadeva. Ruda s/o Mahadeva agreed to execute a sale-deed regarding in his law in favour of petitioner Jhuntha for a sum of Rs. 4 000/- and accordingly, a sale-deed was executed on 19-2-75 which was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sri Madhopur. It appears that the Patwari either inadvertently or otherwise wrongly intimated the parties and the Khasra number entered into the registered deed was 845 instead of 846, though the parentage written was correct. Not only this the Patwari did the mutation also in the revenue record accordingly in respect of Khasra No. 845. Parties, having realised their mistakes, filed revenue suits for correction. The petitioner filed the suit against Ruda s/o Mahadeva in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Neem-ka-Thana on 28 8-78 being revenue suit No. 162/78 resulting in a compromise decree dated 17-3-79. The decree was to the effect that the declaration was made to the effect that Khasra No. 846 measuring 11 bighas and 2 biswas in village Khandala is in cultivatory possession of the petitioner and he is the Khatedar tenant of the said land. As the mutation was wrongly done, Ruda s/o Deva filed an appeal against the older of mutation in the same court i. e. the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Neem-ka-Thana against the petitioner. The said appeal was also compromised on 17th March, 1979 i.e. the same day in which the earlier suit was compromised. Ruda s/o Deva Ram continued to be the Khatedar tenant of Khasra No. 845 and petitioner Jhuntha is in cultivators possession of Khasra No. 846. The said appeal was also compromised on 17th March, 1979 i.e. the same day in which the earlier suit was compromised. Ruda s/o Deva Ram continued to be the Khatedar tenant of Khasra No. 845 and petitioner Jhuntha is in cultivators possession of Khasra No. 846. Thus, all the mistakes, deliberate or otherwise, committed in the past came to be settled on 17.3.79. It is interesting to note that before the suit was compromised, Ruda s/o Deva Ram had filed a criminal complaint on 17-1-79 in the court of M.J M., Sri Madhopur, which was forwarded on the same day to police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P C. Though, the compromise was arrived at and filed before the concerned authorities, yet the police filed a charge-sheet against Jhuntha and Ruda s/o Mahadeva for offences u/Secs., 420, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance also against Jawaharn and Nayab Tehsildar, Madan Singh, Girdawar Khandala and Kishoii Lal Patwari Khandala vide order dated 26-3-81. They challenged the order of cognizance before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neem-ka-Thana, who quashed the same vide order dated 28-5-87. But the petitioner and Ruda s/o Mahadeva continued to face the criminal litigation. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 29-7-89 framed the aforesaid charges against both the accused and the petitioner has challenged the same in this Court. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case no offence worth the name is made out since it was by way of mistake that wrong Khasra number had been entered into the sale-deed which never intended to between the parties. It is submitted that the parties are illiterate and put their thumb impressions and the documents have been executed at the behest of the Patwari, who mad the mistake. When the mistake was detected, all the parties sat together and compromised the case. The compromise bad been filed in the Court and the same had been accepted by the S.D.O , Neem ka-Thana. It is submitted that continuing the criminal litigation subsequent to the aforesaid compromise, amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and though the entire material was on record but the learned Magistrate mechanically drew the charge without applying his mind to the facts of the case. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State supported the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 6. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State supported the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and perused the entire record sent for by this Court. 7. It is not the case of the complainant Ruda s/o Deva even in the complaint that because of the execution deed, any effort was made to dispossess him Irom his land bearing Khasra No. 845. Whether the petitioner really intended to defraud him or to cause wrongful loss to him in any manner could only be inferred from the circumstances of the case. It is borne out even from the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant by the police on 9-3-79, that when he approached the parties, they frankly told him that the entry about his Khasra number had been written by mistake and a bonafide mistake entered into by illiterate persons cannot be said to be by any malafide intention or with criminal intention. On the contrary, filing of the simultaneous litigation in the court of S.D.M. and getting the correction done, shows the bonafides of all the parties concerned. Complainant himself is a signatory to document dated 17-3-79. It has been done simultaneously the compromise entered into between the petitioner and Ruda s/o Mahadeva. In fact, Jhuntha is party to both the litigation viz., the revenue appeal and the revenue suit and entered into compromise, both with Ruda s/o Deva as well as Ruda s/o Mahadeva in order to remove the error crept in past. It would be travesty of justice to drag the petitioner into criminal litigation who has shown his bonafides as early as 17.3.79 by entering g into a compromise with the complainant-petitioner. It appears that the complaint was filed a couple of month prior to entering into the compromise and knowing the real fact possibly under the mistaken belief or at the behest of some mischievous person, he was responsible for bringing the illiterate villagers into litigation, it is thereafter that it is only the police and the courts who had been persuading the matter with total non-application of mind or looking into the mens rea of the accused-persons. The learned Magistrate, who framed the charge vide impugned order has mechanically done so without giving any reason whatsoever in his order for doing so. The learned Magistrate, who framed the charge vide impugned order has mechanically done so without giving any reason whatsoever in his order for doing so. In a matter concerning year 1975 to frame such mechanical charge cannot be appreciated. The learned Magistrate ought to have opened the file and looked into the board rather than mechanically drawing the charges. Having gone through the entire record, I am satisfied that in the instant case there is total lack of mens-rea on the part of the either of the two accused Ruda s/o Mahadeva has not approached this Court, I suo-motu take the notice of the same and consider it proper in the interest of justice to quash the charge against him also. 8. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the petition is allowed and the charges framed against both the accused viz., Jhuntha s/o Balu Mali and Ruda s/o Mahadeva Mali vide order, order dated 29.7.89 are quashed. They are discharged and their bail bonds executed before the trial Court stand discharged. *******