JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is directed against the order dated 21.6.1996 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera in Cr. Case No. 574/88 by which he framed the charge Under section 476 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed that the order framing charge and the charge may be quashed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Mangilal resident of Kanara filed a complaint against the petitioner and alleged that the petitioner took Rs. 1,500/- on 10.5.1983 and Rs. 3,000/- on 25.5.1983 in connection with the conversion of the petitioner's land into Abadi. The petitioner assured that the above amount will remain with him as trust till his land is not converted in Abadi. The petitioner got a farm filled up on 30.5.1983. The complainant thereafter, received a order from the office of the Collector on 1.8.1989 for depositing money at the rate of Rs. 125/- which was deposited by him. The land was not, however, converted into Abadi and only one thousand square yard land was converted by an order dated 1.6.1984. The complainant asked the petitioner to return the amount but he refused and has committed the offence of criminal breach of trust. 3. The complainant was forwarded to SHO Nimbaheda under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code and charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner Under section 406 Indian Penal Code. A case No. 574/88 Under section 406 Indian Penal Code is pending and by the impugned order dated 21.7.1995 charge Under section 406 Indian Penal Code framed against him. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. It is contended that the complainant and the petitioner reached to a compromise and submitted the compromise for attestation in the Court on 3.1.1989. An application for permission to compromise was also submitted on 9.1.1989. Thereafter, the compromise was attested on the same date by learned Judicial Magistrate, Nimbaheda. This fact has also been recorded in the order sheet dated 9.1.1989. However, charge Under section 406 Indian Penal Code came to be framed on 21.7.1995. It is argued that when compromise has been attested with the permission of the Court then the petitioner deserved to be acquitted as a result of this compromise and no proceedings could proceed against him. However, charge Under section 406 Indian Penal Code came to be framed on 21.7.1995. It is argued that when compromise has been attested with the permission of the Court then the petitioner deserved to be acquitted as a result of this compromise and no proceedings could proceed against him. Therefore, the charge framed against the petitioner is against law and continuation of the proceedings is an abuse of the process of the Court. 5. Section 320 sub-sec. (2) provides that the offence Under section 406(5) is compoundable by the owner of the property in respect of which the breach of the trust has been committed and the accused with the permission of the Court, where the value of the property does not exceed 250/-. In the present case, as stated above, the learned trial Court has granted permission for compromise and the compromise has been attested by the Court. The owner of the property i.e. of the money received by the petitioner, is the complainant Mangilal. The complainant Mangilal is fully competent to compromise the matter with the petitioner as per the provisions Under section 320 Criminal Procedure Code. In the present case the value of the property involved in the offence is above 250/- and the matter could not be compromised even with the permission of the Court. In view of the above ground, perhaps the learned trial Court framed the charge because the petitioner could not be acquitted on account of the said compromise. However, when the parties have compromised the disputes no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings. In these circumstances, the proceedings should be termined in the interest of justice by order Under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed, and the proceedings of the Cr. Case No. 574/88, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nimbaheda, are hereby quashed. The petition is disposed of accordingly.Petition Allowed. *******