JUDGMENT

L. MOHAPATRA, J. — This revision is directed against the order dated 05.04.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubanes¬war in I.C.C. No. 120 of 1992 rejecting the petition for com¬pounding the offence.

2. It appears from the record that opposite party No.2 has filed the complaint alleging commission offences under Sections 294, 323, 506, 379 of the Penal Code by the present petitioner. During the course of hearing of the complaint, a joint petition was filed for compounding the offences. The learned Magistrate in the impugned order observed that Sections 294 and 506 of the Penal Code are not compoundable and so far as Section 379 of the Penal is concerned, since the subject matter of theft exceeds Rs. 250/-, the same is also not compoundable and accordingly in the impugned order the learned Magistrate compounded the offence under Section 323 of the Penal Code, but refused to compound in respect of rest of the offences i.e. Sections 294, 379 and 506 of the Penal Code.

3. The learned counsel Shri Ray appearing for the peti¬tioner challenged the order on two grounds. According to Shri Ray, at the time of framing of charge the learned Magistrate by order dated 07.7.1994 had