The High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to pass any order to secure the ends of justice, including the power to compound a non-compoundable offence and record a compromise.

1. - This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a Criminal Case No. 271 /75 pending in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur in F.I.R. No. 26/75 of Police Station Chandwa Ji.

2. One Madan Lal had lodged a F.I.R. on 13.3.1975 regarding an incident which had taken place earlier in the day on which the police registered a case for offence under Sections 511, 147 and 324 IPC. During the course of investigation fracture of left parietal bone was found and hence case altered into one under Section 326 IPC. The police after investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 326 IPC. It would be pertinent to mention here that a report was lodged against the complainant in this case, i.e. by Madan Lal also which was registered as F.I.R. No. 27/75 at the same Police Station. When both the cases were pending trial applications were moved in both the cases for recording a compromise and acquit the accused in terms of the same. It was mentioned in the application under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. that case is going on since 1975 and both, the complainant injured Madan Lal and accused Sri Narain, are close relations living in the same village and by the intervention of the relations they have patched up all their differences and disputes which had taken place and hence they filed this compromise petition. It was mentioned in the application that in cross case No. 263/ 75(257/84) for offences under Sections 325 and 323 IPC also compromise may be recorded. It was mentioned in the application itself that High Court in Harinarain v. State of Rajasthan, 1989 RCC 335 and Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand & Anr. v. State of Raj; AIR 1988 SC 2111 ; have also permitted compromise, hence looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case permission for compromise may be accorded. Compromise petition was signed by all the parties. Learned Magistrate did not record the compromise as the offence was not compoundable but made a reference to this Court vide his order dated 16.9.89. It appears that the letter was addressed to the Registrar wherein the answer to the question framed was sought. This letter remained unanswered for a long period and ultimately it appears from the record that the Addl. Registrar informed the Munsif Magistrate that the learned Magistrate would first seek the guidance of learned District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. It further appears that this letter was written by the Registrar in pursuance of the same order passed in S.B. Criminal Reference No. 471 /90 (Defective). The learned Sessions judge informed learned Munsif that after going through all the decisions referred to in the order there does not appear to be any power in the Court to compound the offence under Section 326 IPC. He however, in his letter, dated 16th January, 1991 addressed to the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate did not refer to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to above. Consequently the application for compromise could not be accepted and hence this petition was filed.

3. I have gone through the entire record of the case. In my opinion learned Sessions Judge was right in answering the reference made by the learned Magistrate that the Magistrate has no power to make a non-compoundable offence into a compoundable offence and thereby compromise the case but, it is also true that their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mahesh chand & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (supra) directed the offence to be compounded under Section 307 IPC also and following the decision there had been some cases where the compromise has been directed. I have already explained this situation in series of cases which arose under Section 498A IPC wherein referring to the decision of the Supreme Court, I had held that so far as the Trial Courts are concerned they have no jurisdiction, express or implied, to record a compromise in a non-compoundable case, but at