1 S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.382/2010 (Ramavtar Sharma Versus The State of Rajasthan & Another) Date of Order :: 3rd March, 2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, counsel for the petitioner Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, PP for the State By way of this Criminal Misc. Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the acc`used petitioner has prayed to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 204/2002 pending in the Court of ACJM No.1, Jaipur District Jaipur for the offences under Sections 332 and 353 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that both, the accused petitioner and non petitioner no.2 Vikram Singh Tanwar compromised the case and filed a compound petition before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Jaipur District Jaipur, but the learned A.C.J.M. rejected the application 2 on the ground that the offences under Sections 332 and 353 of Indian Penal Code were not compoundable under Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 4. The learned counsel contended that since both the parties have compromised, hence this Court should grant permission to compound the offence or direct the trial court to attest the compound petition for the offences under Section 332 and 353 of Indian Penal Code. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions consistently has given a note of caution that inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Section 320 of Cr.P.C. provides for compounding of certain offences with the permission of the Court and certain others even without permission of the Court, but the offences which are not mentioned in the tables provided under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. are obviously not compoundable. It is simply a case wherein the offences under Sections 3 332 and 353 of Indian Penal Code are found to have been committed. If both the parties have compromised, that does not mean that the offences which are not compoundable should be attested and the accused should be set free. If any accused is involved in the offences under Section 307, 323, 451 of Indian Penal Code and the parties compromised in the offences under Section 451 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, should the Court attest the compromise in the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, which is not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr. P.C.? All the courts, irrespective of their hierarchy, are required to act under the provisions of law. If a Judicial Magistrate does not possess the power to attest the compromise in the offence or offences, which are not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., that power does not lie with the High Court also. Can the High Court act as a legislature and enact new laws? The courts are not required to exercise the powers of the legislature. I am afraid that the High Court can attest the compound petition 4 for that offence which is not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.. Neither the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is found to have abused the process of the court nor the facts of the petition are such wherein the inherent jurisdiction by this Court can be invoked. The petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seems to be totally bogus and absurd, which deserves to be dismissed in limine. 6. For the reasons stated above, the criminal misc. petition being bereft of any merits stands dismissed at the thresh- hold. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. DK/-