After compromise between parties usually court allow to compound offence under IPC 337\338 and due to technical reason they don't discharge defendent under IPC 279.
If defender want to end the case he has no option left but to plead guilty and get away with some fine or warning under IPC 279. But this effects him being guilty and convicted. I have seen in many judgement where judge suggest that it is almost impossible to prove rashness and punish convict when a settlement has been made between the convict and petitioner.
If so why cant judge simply discharge defendent and stop the proceeding. Do you think it is fair judgement to force convict to plead guilty(Infact in the order it is written that convict was explained properly that if he pleads guilty then it will effect him and he is not liable to do so, but that is only in the order. Accused is simply asked to sign the document provided by court for pleading guilty and then proceeding is closed after pronouncing him\her accused and penalizing him.There is no explanation or suggestion given to him\her that how it would impact him for the rest of the life). Is it a fair judgement where accused is discharged of principle offence and punished for a offence which is attached to it.
I have seen some recent judgements where judge have suggested "Since, principal offence has already been compounded between parties, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing trial for offence U/sec. 279 IPC. In view of this, proceedings stands dropped U/sec. 258 Cr.PC of offence U/sec. 279 IPC. Accused stands acquitted of offence U/sec. 279 IPC also." If it can happen why cant all courts pass similar order and save many people tagged as convicted even though they were forced to plead guilty to come out of clutch of law due to some or other reason, where they would have easily proved innocene if the trail would have continued for another few years(May be 5-10 years).
Your views are invited.
