JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU, J. — This Criminal Misc. Case has been filed invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 27.2.2003 passed by the J.M.F.C., Sohella in G.R. Case No. 160 of 2002 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 341/448/294/506/34, IPC alleged against the petitioners.

2. The criminal action was set in motion on the basis of an FIR lodged by the informant-opposite party No.2, who is an employee of the Road Transport Organization and working as A.R.T.O at Luhurachati Check Gate under Sohela P.S. in the dis¬trict of Bargarh. It was alleged that the petitioners who were working as colleagues of the informant came to his house and started scolding him in filthy language. Most of them were drunk and were not in conscious state and they behaved in peculiar fashion. On the basis of the said FIR, the G.R. Case was initiat¬ed in which chargesheet has been submitted on 26.2.2003 for commission of offences as state above.

3. Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for the petitioners, force¬fully submitted that the entire incident occurred when the parties were not in conscious state and that the informant and the accused petitioners are all colleagues and friends. There was no mens rea nor any intention to harm the informant and the FIR had been lodged in haste. He further submitted that with the intervention of well-wishers and colleagues of the parties, the dissension among them has been patched up.

4. In course of hearing, the informant appeared through Mr. G.B. Jena and Mrs. Sujata Jena, Advocates who filed a Vaka¬latnama on 18.4.2003. A petition was also filed jointly by the petitioner and the informant-opposite party No.2 under Section 320(1), Cr.P.C. which is sworn to by both the parties inter alia stating that the dispute between the parties has been compromised and that pendency of the present criminal case would rather create a dent in their cordial relationship. A separate affidavit has also been filed by opposite party No.2 solemnly affirming that the FIR had been filed by him, but as the matter has been settled, he is no more interested to prosecute the case. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 also reiterated the facts stated in the petition as well as the affidavit and prayed to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid G.R. Case.

5. Section 320, CrPC empowers the Court to compound certain offences more fully described therein. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 320 CrPC, the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code which can be compounded and the person by whom such offences can be compounded have been stipulated. Similarly, under Sub-section (2) of Section 320 CrPC the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code which can be compromised with permission of Court before which prosecution for the offences is pending are stipulated in a tabular form. Law is well settled that only the offences which have been specifically stipulated can be compound¬ed as provided either under Section 320 (1) or Section 320 (2), CrPC.

6. What is compounding is no more res integra. A compro¬mise effected between a complainant and the accused amounts to compounding the offence. It has the effect of acquittal of the accused. But then, under Section 320 CrPC, a Criminal Court has no power to grant permission to compound a non-compoundable of¬fences, i.e. an offence which does not come within either of the two tables specified under Section 320 (1) or Section 320 (2) CrPC. A Magistrate or a Sessions Judge who does not possess inherent power has no authority to accord permission to compound a non-compoundable offence. But then, can the High Court in exer¬cise of the power under Section 482 of the Code in a given case quash a criminal proceeding is the question posed. The scope and ambit of Section 482 CrPC have been examined by the Supreme Court in a number of cases.

In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, JT 1990 (4) SC 650, the Supreme Court has ob