JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - In this criminal revision, the Petitioners have challenged the order of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhanjanagar, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. by order dated 7.5.1986 and issuing processes against them and have further prayed for quashing the criminal proceeding in I.C.C. No. 15 of 1986. 2. The Petitioners, opposite party No. 2. Debaraj siya Debaraj Naik, Jureswer Siva, Bhaskar Siya, and Balmik Siya and residents of the same village and had previous disputes. On 12.12.1985 at about 9 P.M. attempt was made to settle the disputes. Instead of settlement, it is alleged, a clash took place. The Petitioners being armed with deadly weapons, such as, lathi, Kati and Tangia formed an unlawful assembly and by trespassing into houses assaulted Debaraj Siya, Jureswar Siya, Debaraj Naik, Bhaskar Siya and Balmik Siya with the intention of causing their death. As a result, the victims of the assault received severe injuries on their persons and were medically examined. First information was lodged on the same day at Gangapur Police Station by Debaraj Siya. On 5.3.1986, opposite party No. 2, in respect of the selfsame occurrence, filed a complaint petition and stated therein that although the officer in charge of the Gangapur Police Station informed that a case had been registered, the investigation thereof was perfunctory. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate conducted an enquiry u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) and recorded the statements of witnesses except that of opposite party No. 2 in course of the enquiry and arrived at the conclusion that offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. had been prima facie made out against the Petitioners and accordingly issued processes against them. On the basis of the first information lodged by Debaraj Siya, investigation was carried arid charge sheet under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 294 read with Section 149 I.P.C. was filed and cognizance of the aforesaid offence was taken by order dated 7.7.1986 against Petitioners 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 only. 3. The Petitioners filed a criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Berhampur, for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 210(1) of the Code by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. 3. The Petitioners filed a criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Berhampur, for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 210(1) of the Code by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 11.9.1986 did not accept the contention on the basis of a decision of this Court reported in Padmalochan Sahu Vs. Lokanath Sethi and Others, ., but directed that the complaint case, as well as the G.R. Case should be clubbed for the purpose of trial and G.R. Case No. 500 of 1985, a counter case, if committed to the court of session, should be tried by the same judge. 4. During the pendency of this case the disputing parties filed a petition for compounding the offences u/s 320 of the Code which was registered as Misc. Case No. 794 of 1988. Mr. B.B. Ratho, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the compromise be recorded and the offences compounded so as to end of disputes between the parties. Out of the offences taken cognizance of offences under Sections 448, 323 and 324 I.P.C. are compoundable and the rest including the offence u/s 307 I.P.C. are not compoundable. It was, therefore, not possible to record the compromise and compound all the offences. That apart, a question arose whether this Court in exercise of its inherent powers u/s 482 can permit compromise of offences which are not compoundable u/s 320 of the Code. After discussion at length Mr. Ratho was unable to support his contention by any decision of any of the High Courts and finally gave up the plea. The net result on this aspect is that the offences under Sections 448, 323 and 324 I.P.C. are permitted to be compounded. The other offences under Sections 147, 148, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. cannot be compounded. 5. Mr. Ratho, next contended that the offence u/s 307 I.P.C. is triable exclusively by the court of Session. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate did not comply with the proviso to Section 202(2) by examining all witnesses. Therefore, the order of cognizance of the offence u/s 307 cannot be sustained. In this connection reference may be made to the Division Bench case of this Court reported in Gokulananda Mohanty and Others Vs. Muralidhar Mallik which is being consistently followed in subsequent decisions. Therefore, the order of cognizance of the offence u/s 307 cannot be sustained. In this connection reference may be made to the Division Bench case of this Court reported in Gokulananda Mohanty and Others Vs. Muralidhar Mallik which is being consistently followed in subsequent decisions. In 61 (1986) C.L.T. 95, Kartikeswar Nayak v. Karadi Jagannath and 11 Ors., and in an unreported decision in Criminal Revision Nos. 601 and 602 of 1987, Magi Nayak and Jogi alias Joginath Nayak and Ors. v. The State of Orissa and Ors. (disposed of on 4.8.1988) it was held that in an enquiry under the proviso to Section 202(2) the complainant is bound to examine all witnesses including himself. If that was not done, the order of cognizance passed on such enquiry would be vulnerable according to law. In the complaint case filed by opposite party No. 2, although he examined all witnesses cited in the compliant petition, he did not examine himself. Therefore, according to the principle laid down by this Court the order of cognizance of the offence u/s 307 I.P.C. cannot be sustained. Opposite party No. 2 may still however examine himself before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate and if he does so, the learned court will have to consider his statement along with the statements of other witnesses in order to formulate opinion as to whether a prima facie case u/s 307 I.P.C. has been made out or not. This exercise has to be done after the case goes back to the lower court. 6. Mr. Ratha, lastly contended that although it was specifically stated in the complaint petition and thereby brought to the notice of the court that an the selfsame allegations report had been made at Gangapur Police Station, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate did not comply with the provisions of Section 210(1) of the Code. Such a contention aught to have been raised at the earlier stage. Now, however, charge sheet has been submitted and the question of campliance of the aforesaid provision does not arise. Perhaps keeping these facts in view, the learned Sessions Judge directed clubbing up of the compliant as well as the G.R. Case and as I see, it is the only course now left open, Therefore, the complaint case of opposite party No. 2 (I.C.C. No. 15 of 1986), and G.R. Case No. 503 of 1985 shall be clubbed and tried together. The observation of the learned Sessions Judge with regard to the counter case is not disturbed, because according to law, case and counter case must have to be tried by the same Judge. 7. For the foregoing reasons and subject to the observations made above, the Criminal misc. case is allowed in part. Offences u/s 448, 323 and 324 IPC between the parties are compounded. The order of cognizance relating to the offence u/s 307 I.P.C. is quashed. Misc. Case No. 794 of 1988 is also disposed of. The Lower Court records may be sent back forthwith. Final Result : Allowed