JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is facing trial for the offences under sections 307, 394 read with section 397, and 398 and 324 Indian Penal Code and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The petitioner moved an application to grant permission to compromise the case as he had entered into a compromise with the complainant, who was the injured person. This application has been refused by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur on the ground that the offences are non-compoundable. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 2111 and Kailash Chand and others v. Smt. Basanti, 1989 Cr.L.R. (Rajasthan) 558 in order to contend that even in non-compoundable cases the Supreme Court and this Court have given directions to compromise the matter. 2. I have considered the contentions and perused the record. It can be said that when the application for permission to compromise the case is moved, then one of the things which the court ought to consider is whether a non-compoundable offence can be said to have been made out on the basis of the material which has been placed on record so far. The injury report and the opinion of the doctor, who treated the injured are on record, besides the statements of the injured and his son. When the question has arisen before the Court as to whether permission to compound should be granted or not, then it can be said that the Court can first decide as to what offence can be said to have been committed and thereafter see whether the same can be compounded with the permission of the Court or not. In his statement, Abdul Hakim, injured, has turned hostile and has not supported the police version wherein he had stated that Abdul Majid petitioner, had inflicted knife blows on him. His version now is that he was travelling in a bus with a big parat in front of him and he got hurt by the parat when he dozed off. I have also examined the injury report prepared by the medical officer along with the notes of the operation and it can be said that nowhere the opinion has been expressed that the injuries were dangerous to life. This operation was also performed under local anaesthesia and his general condition after the operation was good. I have also examined the injury report prepared by the medical officer along with the notes of the operation and it can be said that nowhere the opinion has been expressed that the injuries were dangerous to life. This operation was also performed under local anaesthesia and his general condition after the operation was good. Considering all these circumstances, it can be said that prima facie offence under section 307 Indian Penal Code is not made out and if at all the accused c;.n be made liable, then it could be for the offence under Section 324 IPC. As far as the offence. under sections 394 and 391 read with Section 397 and 398 Indian Penal Code are concerned, it can be said that Abdul Hakim has not said about this and the other witnesses, who have been examined under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code have also not stated that the accused had made an attempt to commit robbery. These offences also cannot be said to have been prima facie made out. 3. The only offence which remains is section 4/25 of the Arms Act. This is a matter between the State and the petitioner and cannot be compromised with Abdul Hakim. In the circumstances the Sessions Judge is directed to give permission for compromising the offences with which the petitioner has been charged except for the offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. This direction is given because it can be said that prima facie non-compoundable offence has not been committed. 4. With the above directions, this petition is partly accepted. The record of the Court below be returned immediately.Petition partly accepted. *******