S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.172/2010 (Smt. Kusum Maheshwari & Others Versus The State of Rajasthan & Another) Date of Order :: 27th January, 2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. S.K. Saksena, counsel for the petitioners Mr. Javed Chaudhary, PP for the State By way of this Criminal Misc. Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the accused petitioners have prayed to grant permission / attest the compromise dated 20th January, 2010 (Annexure-3) between the parties filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nasirabad, District Ajmer in Criminal Case No. 143/2002 – State Versus Ramesh Chand & Others, in the interest of justice and law. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the relevant material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has canvassed that both, the accused petitioners and non petitioner no.2 Balveer Singh Jain have compromised and filed compound petition before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, -2- Nasirabad, but the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nasirabad attested the compound petition only in the offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and not under Section 452 of Indian Penal Code as the same was 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 and attest the compound petition or direct the trial court to attest the compound petition under Section 452 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 -3- 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 offence under Section 323 / 149 and 452 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 at liberty. If any accused is involved in the offences under Section 307, 323, 451 of Indian Penal Code and the parties compromised in the offence 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 -4- 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, an offence, which is not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., can the High Court attest the compound petition for that offence? 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 in limine. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. DK/-