IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7978 of 2008 RAJ KISHORE SAHNI, SON OF LATE KAPILDEO SAHNI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GADAHIYA, P.S. MADHUBAN, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. ---- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ---- OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 2 22.1.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have compromised the matter and as such he wishes to re-examine all ten witnesses on this issue. The Court below has rejected the application on the ground that Sections 307 and 379 are not compoundable. In a case of a land dispute where the allegations are of “ekjihV” and the injuries are simple in nature coupled with the fact that due to a land dispute allegation is made of theft of a pity sum of Rs. 500/-, the Court ought to allow the defence to examine the witnesses on the point of compromise. It would delay the case if all ten witnesses are to be examined and, therefore, the Court should ask the petitioner to furnish name of injured witnesses and the informant and examine only these persons on the point of compromise. The defence should not be permitted to take any unlimited time in the matter and the Court may fix short dates for appearances of witnesses. This order is subject to the fact that the informant has no objection in the matter of recall of the witnesses. If the informant has any objection in the matter then there is no question of compromise and therefore, this order will also have no value and the order passed by the Court below will remain as it is. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)