The High Court has the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even when the alleged offence is not compoundable, if it is in the interest of justice to do so.

P. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THE two accused persons in G. R. Case No. 410 of 1990 pending in the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nayagarh, have filed this revision for quashing the aforesaid criminal proceedings.

( 2 ) PETITIONER No. 1 is the son of petitioner No. 2. The F. I. R. was lodged on 3-10-1990 by present opposite party No. 2 alleging that on 27-9-1990 at about 4 P. M. , the two petitioners entered inside the house of the informant and at the instigation of petitioner No. 2, petitioner No. 1 outraged the modesty of opposite party No. 3, the daughter of the informant, and attempted to commit rape. After investigation was over, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 448/114/354/506/511/34, Indian Penal Code, and cognisance was taken by the Magistrate. Though in the charge sheet and order of cognisance, Section 511 alone was indicated, it is evident that the cognisance was in respect of the alleged offence under Section 376, read with Section 511, Indian Penal Code. Before commencement of the trial, a petition for compounding the offences was tiled on behalf of the informant as well as the alleged victim, the present opposite parties 2 and 3 respectively. The contents of the petition for compounding were read over and explained to the informant and the alleged victim personally in Court and upon their admission that the contents of the petition for compounding were correct, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate granted permission for compounding the offences under Sections 443/114/354/506/34, Indian Penal Code, and accordingly acquitted both the accused persons of those charges. However, since the alleged offence under Section 511 read with Section 376, Indian Penal Code, was not compoundable, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate refused permission to compound the said offence and fixed the matter for commitment of the accused persons to the Court of Sessions. At that stage, the two accused persons have approached this Court for quashing the proceeding.

( 3 ) OPPOSITE parties 2 and 3 have entered appearance through an Advocate and have filed two separate affidavits reiterating the fact that a compromise has already been effected and it has been specifically stated that they do not intend to prosecute the two accused persons any further.

( 4 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that when the dispute between the parties has been settled long back, it would not be in the interest of justice to further prosecute the accused persons to rake up a matter which has been closed. It is submitted that even though the alleged offence under Section 511, read with Section 376, Indian Penal Code, is not compoundable, in the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court should quash the proceeding. He has placed reliance on the decisions reported in AIR 1988 SC 2111 : (1989 Cri LJ 121) (Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan); (1988) 1 Orissa Cri R 564 : (1989 Cri LJ 1845) (Md. Khalilur Rahaman v. State of Orissa) and (1994) 7 Orissa Cri R 207 (Sudam Charan Barik v. State ).

( 5 ) IN the present case, the alleged incident took place in 1990, when the alleged victim was aged about 14 to 15 years. About six years have lapsed in the meantime. The alleged victim and her mother, the informant, have also filed affidavits in this Court indicating their disinclination to proceed further in the matter. While it is true that the alleged offence under Section 511 read with Section 376, Indian Penal Code, is not compoundable and as such the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate was justified in refusing to drop the proceeding, as he had no power to exercise inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in such a contingency the hands of the High Court are not tied down. If the proceeding is allowed to continue, the alleged victim is bound to be dragged to the Court to depose about an incident which allegedly occurred about six years back. In view of t