IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8180 OF 2009 Between: Godugu Narsimha & 2 others ..... Petitioners/Accused/de facto complainant AND The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondent/Complainant The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 320(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the Petitioners, who are the accused and de facto complainant, to set aside the order, dated 23.09.2009, passed in Crl.M.P.No.82 of 2009 in S.C.No.350 of 2008, on the file of the learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahaboobnagar, and permit the petitioners to compound the case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 307 IPC. 2. The petition was filed under Section 320(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to grant permission to compound the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 307 IPC read with 34 IPC, which was dismissed by the Court below by the impugned order. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that in view of the fact that the parties have compromised the matter, the trial Court ought to have accepted the compromise, and he relied on a decision reported in Mahesh Chand and another, Petitioners v. State of Rajasthan, Respondent[1], wherein it is held thus: “The accused were acquitted by the trial court, but they were convicted by the High Court for the offence under section 307 I.P.C. This offence is not compoundable under law. The parties, however, want to treat it a special case, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. It is said and indeed that this case has already been compromised. The decision of this Court in Suresh Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1987) 2 JT 361, has been also referred to in support of the plea for permission to compound the offence.” 5. That is not the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court and considering the facts and peculiar circumstances of that case, the Supreme Court directed the trial Court to compound the offence. The Subordinate Courts have no inherent powers to be exercised except as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6. Section 320(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does not contemplate granting of permission to compound the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with 34 IPC. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the same. There are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 7th October, 2009. KL [1] AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2111