IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.36227 of 2010 RAM BAHADUR SINGH S/o Sri Jagat Singh, R/o 205, Patliputra Town and District- Patna …Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR & 2. Ganesh Prsad Sinha S/o Sri Jai Mangal Singh, R/o Road No.8, Sri Krishna Nagar, P.S.-Budha Colony, Town & District- Patna, at present posted as Assistant Engineer, Patratu Thermal Power, P.S. Patratu, District- Hazarbiagh (Jharkhand) & 3. Gagan Kumar S/o Sri Ganesh Prasad Sinha, R/o Road No.8,Sri Krishna Nagar, P.S. Budha colony, Town and District- Patna ……Opposite Parties ----------- 2/ 07.03.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 20.8.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.4, Patna, by which he has refused to recall of P.W.2, 5 and 6 in Sessions Trial No. 449 of 2002. It has been submitted that the parties are closely related and, therefore, in the interest of justice after the evidence of P.W. 2 and 5 was recorded, a compromise was entered between them on account of which these witnesses were permitted to be recalled and they were examined on the factum of compromise between them. Subsequently, the accused persons resiled from the compromise and, therefore, the informant i.e. the petitioner sought for their recall once again so that the factum of compromise should be ignored. Since the offence under sections 307, 467 and 468 Indian Penal Code as also section 27 of the Arms Act are not compoundable in nature, I direct the trial court to completely ignore the factum of compromise that had been effected between the 2 parties. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this application stands disposed of. JA/- (Anjana Prakash,J.)