JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition seeking quashing of FIR No.255/2012 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Barmer for the offence under Sections 384, 385 & 500 of IPC and the order dated 10.9.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in Criminal Case No.491/2012. 2. The petitioner along with 2 others earlier filed S.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No.1497/2012 (Mahavir Jain & Ors. Vs. State & Ors.) seeking quashing of the impugned FIR before this Court, which was partly allowed on 11.5.2015 and Section 384 of IPC from amongst other allegations was quashed. However, it was made clear that the proceedings under Sections 385 and 500 of IPC shall continue. 3. Thereafter a compromise was arrived at between the complainant and Mahavir Jain the principal accused and as such, another S.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No.3456/2015 (Mahavir Jain. vs. State & Anr.) came to be filed which was allowed by this Court on 11.12.2015. This Court quashed the impugned FIR for the remaining offence of Sections 385 and 500 IPC on count of compromise so arrived. 4. The complainant thereafter filed S.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No.1451/2016 before this Court praying for restoration of the trial against the present petitioner and one Harish Chandak who are co-accused on the ground that the compromise was arrived at by the complainant only with the main accused Mahavir Jain. The said petition was allowed by this Court on 13.9.2017 and it was directed that the trial Court shall now be at a liberty to proceed against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 therein in accordance with law. In the order dated 13.9.2017, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to seek a separate remedy. The relevant portion of the order dated 13.9.2017 reads as follows :- "The respondent Nos.2 and 3 is always be at a liberty to avail a separate remedy seeking quashing of the FIR on merits on that ground being a fresh cause of action." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown this Court the impugned FIR wherein the complete allegations revolve around the main accused Mahavir Jain and, therefore, when the impugned FIR has been quashed qua the main accused Mahavir Jain, the same be quashed qua the present petitioner also. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown this Court the impugned FIR wherein the complete allegations revolve around the main accused Mahavir Jain and, therefore, when the impugned FIR has been quashed qua the main accused Mahavir Jain, the same be quashed qua the present petitioner also. The impugned FIR reads as follows:- fuosnu gS fd esokjke tSu fo/kk;d ckM+esj dk ;g gS fd egkohj tSu uked i=dkj tks e:ygj ds uke ls lekpkj i= tks/kiqj o ckM+esj ls Ádkf'kr djrk gS egkohj tSu vius v[kckjksa esa jktuhfrKksa o ftykf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo:} vuki'kuki >wBh [kcjsa Ádkf'kr djds iSls ,sBrk jgrk gSA blds fo:} /kks[kk/kM+h] ekugkfu] ,uŒMhŒihŒ,lŒ ,DV ds rgr eqdnesa pys gSA orZeku esa Hkh dbZ Ádj.k yfEcr gSA egkohj tSu esjs o esjs ifjokj ds ckjs esa >wBh o Hkzked [kcjsa Nkirs jgrs gS vkSj /kefd;ka nsrk jgrk gS fd iSls nks ojuk rqEgkjh Áfr"Bk /kwy esa feyk nwaxkA fd bl ekg ds bafM;k VqMs uked if=dk esa ,d [kcj Ádkf'kr gqbZ Fkh ftlesa ckM+esj esa dkaxzslh usrk dh v'yhy lhMh gksus dk nkok fd;k Fkk egkohj tSu us bf.M;k VwMs esa Ádkf'kr [kcj dks vk/kkj cukdj vius lekpkj i= e:ygj esa igys rks ;g Nkik fd ckM+esj ds dkaxzslh usrk dh v'yhy lhMh vkus okyh gS fQj eq>s o esjs HkkbZ ls txnh'k [k=h iwoZ ik"kZn ,oa gjh'k p.Md ds ekQZr 10 yk[k :i;s dh ekax egkohj tSu }kjk dh xbZ ugha rks cnuke dj nwaxkA eSaus tc iSls nsus ls bUdkj fd;k rc egkohj tSu us vius lekpkj i= e:ygj ds ÁFke ist ij tks fnukad 4-6-2012 dks Ádkf'kr fd;k ftlesa egkohj tSu us vkf[kj ckM+esj dk dkSulk usrk gS vkifRrtud lhMh esa\ ds uke ls [kcj Nkih ftlesa Hkzked ,oa f}vFkhZ Hkk"kk esa bZ'kkjk fd;k x;k fd og vkifRrtud lhMh ckM+esj ds fo/kk;d dh gSA ;g fujk/kkj lekpkj gS tks egkohj tSu us 10 yk[k :i;s ugha nsus ij Nkik gS yksxksa dks CySdesy djuk] /kefd;ka nsuk muls iSls ,saBuk ,slk O;olk; gS tks fiNys 15 o"kksZ ls ;g dj jgk gSA dksbZ Hkh O;fDr egkohj tSu ds fo:} dk;Zokgh djus ls Mjrk gS D;ksafd egkohj tSu vius v[kckj esa ml O;fDr ds fo:} ,slh >wBh [kcjsa Ádkf'kr djus dh /kedh nsrk gS fd og lekt esa eqga ugha fn[kk lds tc rd ihfM+r O;fDr lPpkbZ is'k djrk gS rc rd ml O;fDr dk Áfr"Bk dk lR;uk'k gks pqdk gksrk gSA vr% fjiksVZ ÁLrqr dj fuosnu gS fd egkohj tSu] txnh'k [k=h o gjh'k p.Md ds fo:} CySd dj iSls ekaxus o ekugkfu dkfjr djus ds lEcU/k esa eqdnek ntZ dj dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djkdj nf.Mr djkosaA fnukad 5-6-2012 Hkonh; ,lMh@& esokjke tSu ¼fo/kk;d ckM+esj½ dk;Zokgh iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh ckM+esj fnukad 6-6-2012 le; 7%15 ihŒ,eŒ mDr fjiksVZ ftyk iqfyl v/kh{kd] ckMesj dk;kZy; ls tfj;s Mkd ÁkIr gqbZA etewu fjiksVZ ls ekeyk vijk/k /kkjk 384] 385] 500 vkbZŒihŒlhŒ ds cdqos esa vkuk ik;k tkus ls eqŒuaŒ 255@12 iathc} dj vuqla/kku eq>s ,lŒ,pŒvksŒ nsokjke }kjk Lo;a ds ftEes fy;k x;kA fu;ekuqlkj ,QŒvkbZŒvkjŒ dh Áfr;ka tkjh dh tk jgh gS ftldh ,d Áfr ÁkFkhZ dks fu%'kqYd nh tkosxhA 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions, has relied upon judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Kamal Kishore Biyani vs. Shyam Sunder Bang (Criminal Revision No.2076/2012) decided on 5.7.2013 and judgment of Punjab High Court in the case of Dalbir Singh vs. State of Punjab (Criminal Misc. No.M-27509/2015) decided on 15.9.2015. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant, however, submits that the earlier misc. petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as not pressed and liberty was given to raise all the pleas before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 further submits that no fresh stage has arisen which would entitle the petitioner to maintain the present petition. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2, however, was not able to satisfy as to how the impugned FIR would be maintainable against the present petitioner when it has been quashed on account of the compromise being arrived at between the complainant and main accused Mahavir Jain. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that on a bare reading of the impugned FIR, complete allegation is against the main accused Mahavir Jain and the present petitioner is merely said to have communicated on his behalf. The present petitioner is not instrumental in making the publication leading to the present FIR nor any amount was paid to him. In the FIR, the publication as well as allegation of demanding the amount of Rs.10 lakhs has been levelled upon Mahavir Jain whereas the petitioner has been stated to be only acting on his behalf. Liberty given by this Court in S.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No.1451/2016 decided on 13.9.2017 is an absolute liberty as this Court has left it open to the present petitioner to avail separate remedy seeking quashing of FIR on merits and on that ground, the matter was closed against main accused Mahavir Jain as the compromise was arrived at between the complainant and Mahavir Jain. 9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances and on a perusal of the impugned FIR itself on the face of it, the offences are not made out if the same have been compromised by the complainant with the main accused. 9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances and on a perusal of the impugned FIR itself on the face of it, the offences are not made out if the same have been compromised by the complainant with the main accused. No offence is made out as per the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in, (1992) AIR SC 604. It is a case where on a bare reading of the impugned FIR no independent offence is made out against the present petitioner who is merely alleged with being an instrumental in giving effect to the chain of circumstances at the instance of main accused Mahavir Jain. This Court is of the opinion that no person has a right to play with the modalities of law and procedure of law as the law is not for convenience of a person. The complainant filed the complete FIR against the main accused Mahavir Jain while making incidental and ancillary charges interwoven in the main offence against the present petitioner. 10. The complainant cannot be permitted to undermine the authority of rule of law by picking and choosing amongst the offenders. The very fact that the person who is facing the principal allegation has been let out at the instance of the complainant himself, warrants interference in the present case. The facts of the impugned FIR do not constitute any independent offence against the present petitioner as the facts of the case lock stock and barrel indicate the offence to be committed by the principal accused and the petitioner was merely an ancillary character in the set of allegations. In such interwoven allegations, where the law cannot pick independent culpability of the petitioner, continuance of the proceedings cannot be permitted. The complainant who has knowingly and willingly compromised with the principal accused has undermined the credibility of his own allegations which fall flat if only read against the petitioner. The very conduct of the complainant speaks for itself and does not warrant him to continue the criminal proceedings when he himself has chosen to withdraw the allegation of publishing news item damaging his reputation against the main accused on account of compromise being arrived at between him with the main accused. The very conduct of the complainant speaks for itself and does not warrant him to continue the criminal proceedings when he himself has chosen to withdraw the allegation of publishing news item damaging his reputation against the main accused on account of compromise being arrived at between him with the main accused. The FIR was focused on the publication of news item for which the allegation has been levelled only upon Mahavir Jain, whose conduct has already been condoned/ compromised by the complainant. 11. In light of the aforesaid observations, the instant misc. petition is allowed. The impugned FIR No.255/2012 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Barmer and the order dated 10.9.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in Criminal Case No.491/2012 qua the present petitioner are quashed and set aside.