JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings pending before the trial Court in Criminal Case No. 226/2011 for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120 B I.P.C. 2. The contention of the present petitioners is that the private respondent filed the compromise for quashing the proceedings pending before the trial Court and prayed that now no dispute remained between the parties but the trial Court vide order dated 10.8.2011 refused to compound the offence on the ground that the offences are non-compoundable. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now the parties have settled the issues and there was only property dispute between the parties which was settled now and when the compromise has been arrived. at between the parties, no fruitful result will come out in continuation of the proceedings. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the offences are of Sections 467, 468 I.P.C. and the forgery has been done in muster-roll and payment register and hence private complaint Pana Devi could not compound the above foffence. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgements reported in the cases of Vijay Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2008 (2) CJ (Raj.) Cr. 523 ; Ganpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2008 (1) R Cr D 288 (Raj.) ; Amit Kumar Pareek & Anr. v. State and Anr., 2006 (3) CJ (Raj.) Cr. 1401 ; Nalini Shankaran & Ors. v. Neel Kanth Mahadeo, 2007 (3) CJ (SC) Cr. 1067 and in the case of S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 131/2011 - Rabbani & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. of this Court decided on 2.2.2011 where forgery alleged to have done in the power of attorney, sale, gift deed etc. But in the present case, forgery alleged to have been done in muster -roll and payment register, official record. 6. Looking at the charges framed against the present petitioners, there are specific allegations against the present petitioners that they forged the muster roll and payment register and made false entries in the payment register and muster roll and hence charges under Sections 467, 468 and 120-B I.P.C. should not be quashed on account of that the parties have arrived at a compromise. 7. 7. The trial Court vide order dated 10.8.2011 refused to grant permission to compromise the matter pending before the trial Court. Pana Devi complainant has presented compromise petition only in regard to offence under Section 420 I.P.C. which is a compoundable offence with the permission of the Court and when the complainant and the present petitioner have settled the issues, the learned trial Court was not right in refusing permission to compound the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. Hence the order dated 10.8.2011 is liable to be quashed. 8. In view of the above, this misc. petition is partly allowed and the order of the trial Court dated 10.8.2011 is hereby quashed. Permission to compound the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is granted. However, proceedings pending before the trial Court for the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 120-B I.P.C. could not be quashed on account that the parties have arrived at the compromised.Petition partly allowed. *******