1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1645 OF 2008 DIST.: MUMBAI Ashok Jain & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State & Anr. ...Respondents. The Petitioners in person present Mrs. S.D. Shinde, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 13, 2008 P.C.:- The High Court passed an order in the application filed by the petitioners in the following terms:- “The accused have filed the present petition stating that they have settled the dispute with the complainant Savio Lobo in C.C. No. 1132/P/2003 and 68/PW/2004 which are pending before the 19th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade. It is submitted by the accused-petitioners that the complainant has settled the dispute with them and an affidavit to that effect has already been filed by the complainant on 14.5.2004. The petitioners now contend that in view of this affidavit, the prosecution against them should be quashed. 2. The applicants shall make an application in accordance 2 with law before the Metropolitan Magistrate for compounding the offence in view of the affidavit filed by Savio Lobo within two weeks from today. If such an application is filed, the Metropolitan Magistrate will consider it and pass appropriate orders within two weeks thereof. 3. Mr. Pol, learned APP, states that the State has no objection to compounding of the offence. However, after an appropriate application is made, the prosecutor appearing before the Metropolitan Magistrate will make that statement before the Metropolitan Magistrate. 4. Application stands disposed of.” 2. Thereafter, it appears that the application for compounding the offence was made before the trial Court. The trial Court compounded the case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which was compoundable, and under Section 406, the trial Court refused to compound on the ground that it was a non-compoundable offence. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate had not bothered to compound an offence, which was against the State, and which was non-compoundable. 3. The petition is misconceived and dismissed. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.