Radhakrishnan, J.

This matter has been placed before us on a reference by Justice R. Basant doubting the correctness of the view expressed by another learned Judge of this Court in Baiju v. S.I. Police and another, ILR 2006 (2) Kerala 747. Learned Judge in his reference order posed the question as to whether a non-compoundable offence be legally compounded by the victim of the offence and such composition be accepted by criminal courts exercising original, appellate or revisional powers under the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Learned Single Judge while deciding Biju's case exercised his revisional power under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and compounded the offences under sections 143, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code which are otherwise non-compoundable either under subsection (1) or under subsection (2) of section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While accepting the compounding application learned single Judge expressed the following view:

"It can safely be concluded that where the interest of the public are not rightly affected, the complainant may be permitted to come to a compromise with the party, against whom he had originally complained of, and the offence being those mentioned under Section 320 of the Code. But in case of non-compoundable offence, and not mentioned under Section 320 of the Code, the Court should consider the facts and circumstances of each case and allow the parties to compromise, thereby to restore an amicable and harmonious relationship between the parties, which otherwise would likely to result in an enduring feud. In view of the above basic principles laid down by the Apex Court, a well as to maintain amity and harmony among the persons involved in a crime, it is necessary for the Court to grant permission to compound the offence, even if they are not compoundable as per the procedure, and also that such offence does not seriously affect the interest of the public at large."

Revision petitioners herein have filed Crl.M.Appln.No.6613 of 2006 under section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for compounding the offence under section 498 (A), 506(1), 342, 323, 324 read with section 34 IPC stating that the difference of opinion between the parties the parties have been settled and the husband and wife have joined and are staying together as husband and wife, consequently, prayed that the offences alleged against the petitioners be compounded.

3. Sri. Peeyus A. Kottam, counsel appearing for the revision petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the learned single in Baiju's case (supra) and submitted that interests of justice demands that the court should accept the request for compounding and the offences the compounded and the accused persons be acquitted of all the charges. Sri. P.G. Thampi, Director General of Prosecutions who appeared for the State and opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submitted that the offence under section 498(A) IPC cannot be compounded since that offence has not been included either under subsection (1) or under subsection (2) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel submitted in any view of the matter this court exercising jurisdiction under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot compound an offence which is otherwise a non-compoundable under section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Apex Court in Bankat and another v State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 343) has clearly stated that for compounding of the offences punishable under IPC, a complete scheme is provided under Section 320 of the Code. Sub-section (1) of Section 320 provides that the offences mentioned in the table provided thereunder can be compounded by the persons mentioned in column 3 of the said table. Further, sub-section (2) provides that the offences mentioned in the table could be compounded by the victim with the permission of the court. As against this, sub-section (9) specifically provides that "no offence shall be compounded except as provided by