AJAYA KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that G.R.Case No. 516 of 1994 was registered on the FIR lodged by the O.P. No. 2. A clash between the informant's and the accused groups in a religious procession led to registration of the said case. After completion of investigation charge -sheet was filed and cognizance of the offences Under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 506, 149, IPC was taken by the SDJM, Kendrapara. He further states that even if both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and compromised, but some of the aforesaid offences being non - compoundable, petitioners have come up with this application Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the cognizance order. Learned counsel appearing for the informant -opp. party No. 2 admits the fact situation and concedes to the said prayer. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel, however, states that a compromise of the above nature is not sufficient to entertain the prayer of the petitioners.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners stated that in some decisions of this Court including a Division Bench of this Court has held that compounding of offence of a non -compoundable nature, in exceptional case, can be made in exercise of the inherent power Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. It is not necessary to refer to such decisions in view of a recent decision of a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court. In the case of Surendranath Mohanty and Anr. v. State of Orissa (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 25 the Apex Court have propounded that a non -compoundable offence cannot be compounded in view of legislative mandate in Sub -section (9) of Section 320, Cr.P.C. and if they are not falling in the categories of offences enumerated in Sub -sections (1) and (2) of Section 320, Cr.P.C. Their Lordships have further propounded that contrary ratio in the case of Mahesh Chand and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan : JT 1988 (1) SC 618 and Y. Suresh Babu v. State of A.P. and Anr. 1987 (2) JT 361 be treated as per incuricun.