JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of the parties, the matter was finally heard at admission stage.The present misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 4.4.2000 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khetri, whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khetri on the basis of the compromise, acquitted the accused petitioners from the offences under Section 323, 324 IPC, but for the offence under Section 326 IPC,the matter was kept pending. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the certified copy of the compromise which was placed before the trial court. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgments reported in 2000(1) SC Cases 248 (Parmeshwari & Ors. v. Vanil), ; 1989 CLJ 121 (Mahesh Chand & Another v. State of Rajasthan), ; 1997(3) crimes 129 (Kishore Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & another, ) and 2001 WLC Raj.) UC 553 : 2001(1) RCC 387 (Abdul Nadeem v. State of Rajasthan), . 3. I carefully gone through the judgments cited before me. By bare perusal of the judgments, this fact is revealed that if the compromise entered into between the parties and the complainant do not want to pursue the case, no purpose will be served in permitting the case to continue and in all the cases, trial court was directed to close the further proceedings. 4. In the instant case, the trial court acquitted the accused petitioner for offences under Section 323 and 324 IPC, but the trial court charged the accused petitioner for offence under Section 326 IPC observing that the offence under Section 326 is not compoundable under the law and ordered to continue the proceedings under Section 326 IPC. 5. In view of the ratio decided by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial court to permit the parties to compound, the offence and further direct to close the proceedings in the matter. 6. With these observations, the misc. petition stands allowed.Petition allowed. *******