t .- ^ ^ .y ^I^" HI@H^Aai OF CHH^T^S^Agy^^^^^ Cr.M.P.No.312 of 2007 Petltioner^ Respondent SB { Hon'b{e Mr. T.P. Shama. J. 1. 2. Vs, Kris'hna Kumar Yadav, S/o Ram Kawal Yadav/ Aged about 30 years, R/o 714, Vehicte Road, ftamhhi Jabalpur, bistt.Jabaipur (M.P.) Smt.Meera Devi, W/o {(ri^hna Kumar aged about 27 years, ft/o 10/10 M.P. Housin9 Board, Industrlal Area, Bhild, Tah. A Distt. burg (C.6.) State of Chhatti^garh, Throygh Maliila Thana Durg, Distr.Dyrg (Chhattisgarh) (PETrTTON UNDER SECTCON 482 OF Cr.P.C.) s{ A Mr. ftajneesh Kumar Baghel, counse! for the pe^itjoners. Mr. Rcuendra Tripat'hi, Panei iawyer for the State/respondent. OR&^ (Passed on 23rd Aprit, 2009) The petltioners have filed this petjtton challengtng Itie order dated 24.3.2007 pas^ed by the Additiona! Chlef Judicja! Magistr'ate, Durg, In Crwinal Case No.46/06 by which the appliccstion for compromise fited in case of offence punjshable under Section 498-A of -tiie Indlcn Penql Code has been dismissed on the. ground that offence aiteged \s not.compoyndab!€,R€vJsJon was preferred again.st 1+^e said o'rder and liie same was a{so dismissed. 2. Learned coun<^? appearing for the petitioners sybmlts that ajth'ough offence i^ not compoundable, but m the Sight of the djctum in the ax^ of 8.5. Jcshi snd sthsrs vs. Stat®of Hsrysna and finsthgr , the procsscling before 'ttt.e triaJ Court be quashed, 3, In l4ie instant case, the parties have not filed petition for compromi^B- before this Coyrt. Order JmpuQnccl reveab 1+iat the trlal Court has not committed <xny ijlegality resufting »ntomlscarriage of justice. I d^ not find any 1 (2003) 4SCC 675 iiiiw^ ^iSSF &/- - 9 ^. ground for invokjng extraordjnary inherent jyrisdiction wlth^yt any compromi^e petition, 4. Accordingly, the petjtion being devoid of merit is Ijab'e to be dlsmissed and it Is hereby djsmissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge T