IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39002 of 2009 1. KAMLESH PRASAD, SON OF SRI SIA SARAN MAHTO 2. LUCHU PRASAD, SON OF SADHU SARAN MAHTO BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DOIYA, P.S. NOOR SARAI, BIHAR SHARIF, NALANDA. ---- PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ---- OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 4 13.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. The petitioners want to re-examine P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 on the contents of the compromise filed on 8.1.2008. It goes without saying that the offences are not compoundable and as such it cannot be said that the case can be compromised on the basis of the petition filed on behalf of the parties. Learned counsel submits that he is only interested in examining the witnesses with respect to the contents of the compromise petition. The effect of the cross examination will be appreciated by the trial Court. The entire exercise of conducting the trial is to get to the truth of the matter and if any further fact is necessary to get to the truth of the matter, it cannot be said that the exercise of such power would be illegal. The informant has appeared in this case and filed a counter affidavit stating that he has no objection regarding cross examination of witnesses. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners undertakes that he will be cross examining the witnesses and requires only one day for the purpose. Accordingly the trial Court should allow the accused to cross examine P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 on any 2 one day. No further time will be granted. The result of the cross- examination will always be subject to the scrutiny and comment of the Court. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)