JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for accused as well complainant petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan. 2. An FIR No. 287/2001 was registered at police station, Kotwali District Sikar by complainant Banwari Lal. After investigation, chargesheet came to be filed against the accused petitioner Manoj Kumar Joshi under Section 336 & 338 IPC. Then, substance of the offences was read over in to the accused, who pleaded not guilty. In the meantime, the dispute was compromised between the complainant and the accused, therefore, the accused was acquitted under Section 338 of IPC. Thereafter, statement of the complainant was recorded and he turned hostile; he did not supported the prosecution case. Thereafter an application under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure for discharging the accused was submitted and the same was dismissed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar in Criminal Case No. 287 of 2001 State of Rajasthan v. Manoj Kumar Joshi . Hence, this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. 3. It is not disputed that the offence under Section 336 is not compoundable, therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have granted permission for the compromise for the offence under Section 336 IPC. As far as the legal position is concerned, the learned Magistrate was justified not to discharge the accused as provided under Section 239 Cr.PC. because it was a summon trial case and the relevant provision was not Section 239 Cr.PC. which is applicable in the cases of warrant trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that this is the offence under Section 336 IPC which is a minor offence and therefore proceedings should be quashed. He has placed reliance on two judgments of the Rajasthan High Court reported in Kishore Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 (2) WLC 609 and Abdul Nadim and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2001 (1) RCC 387 . 4. I have considered arguments. 5. Offence under Section 336 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with a fine which may extend - of Rs. 250/- or with both. Thus, it is a minor offence and as stated earlier, the new offence under Section 338 IPC had already been compounded. 4. I have considered arguments. 5. Offence under Section 336 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with a fine which may extend - of Rs. 250/- or with both. Thus, it is a minor offence and as stated earlier, the new offence under Section 338 IPC had already been compounded. In Kishore Kumar's case (supra), the dispute was between wife and husband under Section 498 - A IPC and since the offence was not compoundable, the proceedings were dropped in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.PC. and in Abdul Nadim's case (supra) criminal case under Sections 323, 325, 148, 308 and 149 IPC was going on and the matter was compromised between parties, therefore, it was held that though offence under Sections 148 and 308 IPC are not compoundable, the proceedings, in the interest of justice, should be quasehd and were quashed. Keeping in view, both the judgments of this High Court, the case in hand appears to be a reasonable one where the proceedings under Section 336 IPC, particularly keeping the statement of complainant himself should be quashed in the interest of justice. For the reasons stated above, this Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the proceedings under Section 336 IPC pending in Criminal Case No. 287/2001 State of Rajasthan v. Manoj Kumar are quashed.Petition allowed. *******