~ Y ^ <s;' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONERS: Criminal MJSC. Petitjon No.278 of2©07 1. Lakhan Lai Sahu, S/o Late Miiap Ram Sahu, aged about 47 years, Occupation Govt. Servant, CiviS Court, Sakti; Tahsit Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), R/o Viilage Badedeogaon, P.S. Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Bhikham Singh, S/o Late Miiap Ram Sahu, aged about 56 years, Occupation Agricuiturist, R/o Viilage Badedeogaon, P.S. Kharsia, Djstt. Raigarh (C.G.) RESPONDENTS: Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Shyamlal Sahu, S/o Shripath Sahu, aged about 36 years, Occupation Agricuiturist, R/o Viliage Tundri, P.S. Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) {Petition under Section 482 ofthe Code of Crimjnal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. A.V. Shridhar, counsei for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawai, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1. Mr. H.S. Pate!, counsei for respondent No.2. Sjngle Benchilion'bie Mr. T.P. Shamna. J ORAL ORDER (23-1-2009) 1. i.A.No.2/2007, application for taking additiona! documentson record, is allowed. Documents are taken on record. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 18-4-2007 passed by the Additionai Sessions Judge, Sakti in Criminai Revision No.38/2007, affirming the order dated 15-3-2007 passed by the Judiciai Magistrate, First Class, Sakti in Criminai Case No.2814/2006 whereby the Court beiow has rejected the app!ication for compromise fiied on behaif of the parties. :Y Soma w 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has committed an itlegality by not aiiowing the compromise only on the ground of objection taken by one stranger Advocate Mr. Manoj Agrawa!. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 is complainant before the Court beiow, the petitioners have taken the signature of the complainant on the compromise by cheatlng him and the compiainant is not ready for compounding ofthe offence. 5. Taklng into consideration the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.2, 1 do not find any ground for invokingthe extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. 6. Consequently, I.A.No. 1/2007 stands dlsposed of. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge