The High Court does not have the power to compound a non-compoundable offence, even if the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. The Court also cannot quash the proceeding in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as such a course of action would be contrary to the provisions of the Code.

R. K. DASH, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused persons') by filing the present application have challenged the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baramba, passed in G. R. Case No. 78 of 1990, whereby he has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 436, I. P. C. and issued summons for their appearance.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present proceeding may be stated thus :kubera Majhi, opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the informant') lodged F. I. R. at Baramba Police Station alleging that the accused persons were inimically disposed towards him since last Panchayat election and in order to take revenge on him, they came in a body to his house at about 1. 40 in the night of 18/19-6-1990 being armed with lathis, knives, rivolvers, etc. , took away household articles and set fire to the house. They also assaulted and dragged him forcibly with intention to throw him in the burning fire. It is further alleged that they while leaving his house with the movables, threatened that if he did not withdraw the case that he had filed against them, they would finish his entire family. On receipt of the said report, the police registered a case and on completion of investigation submitted final report since no sufficient evidence was available to place charge-sheet against the accused persons. On receipt of the final report, learned Magistrate issued notice to the informant to have his say. In response to the said notice the informant entered appearance and challenged the correctness of the final report whereupon the learned Magistrate on perusal of the case diary and being satisfied that a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons took cognizance of the offenceunder Section 436, I. P. C.

( 3 ) THE accused persons then moved this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 892 of 1991 and prayed for quashing the aforesaid order. Upon hearing the parties, the Court set aside the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and remitted the matter back with a liberty to the accused persons to raise all possible contentions before him since such a course was permissible in view of the decision of the Apex Court in K. M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, (1992) 5 OCR 66 : (1992 Cri LJ 3779 ). It appears, learned Magistrate received the original case record on 5-6-1993 and adjourned the case to 20-8-1993 on which date he passed a cryptic order taking cognizance of the offence which runs thus :"advocate for the accused persons filed hazira. The record is posted today for orders. Perused the record and the order of the Hon'ble Court. The Hon'ble Court has passed an order to reassess the materials on record and to take cognizance thereafter if there appears a prima facie case against the accused persons. Therefore the record is perused with great care and caution and find there appears a prima facie case u/s. 436, I. P. C. against the accused persons. Hence cognizance is taken u/s. 436. I. P. C. Issue summons to the accused persons fixing 8-10-93 for appearance. "

( 4 ) FROM the above it is crystal clear that the learned Magistrate did not keep himself alive to the observation of this Court while taking cognizance of the offence, inasmuch as he did not afford reasonable opportunity to the accused persons to raise all possible contentions. It would appear from the record that on the date fixed no order could be passed as the record was not available. The case then suffered three adjournments. Lastly on 20-8-93 learned Magistrate passed the impugned order without affording opportunity of hearing to the accused persons in a mechanical manner and without applying his judicial mind and therefore, the same being unsustainable in law has to be set aside. Consequently I would have remanded the case with a direction to the learned Magistrate to pass orders in accordance with law keeping in mind the observation of this Court. But since argument was advanced on behalf of the a