R. C. RATAN, J. ( 1 ) IN this revision, petitioners seek to quash cognizance of offences taken u/ss. 147/148/ 336/427/454/380/294/506/ 436 with 511 read with 149 I. P. C. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case is that on 25-3-1989 at about 12 noon, petitioners committed rioting being armed with deadly weapons endangered the life of the inmates of the informant in G. R. Case No. 75 of 1989 causing damage to the house and household articles. They committed theft of the antenna and booster of the Television by breaking open the house after rebuking in filthy language and attempted to cause death with threatening dire consequence. Petitioners threw fire with intent to destroy the house in furtherance of their common object. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 4-7-1989 and cognizance was taken on that basis. Against the aforesaid order, petitioners approached this Court in criminal revision No. 541 of 1989 and by order dated 11-12-1989 the order was set aside and matter was remitted back to the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate for reconsideration. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. ( 3 ) BACKGROUND of the case as revealed from the revision petition is that prior to the alleged occurrence petitioners had launched a movement against bus owners of the locality. On account of success of the movement, bus owners, drivers and conductors nurtured grievance against petitioners who took active part in the movement. Of the petitioners, some are practising advocates who took part in the movement. On account of this, it is claimed by petitioners that informant who is a bus owner lodged an FIR on false allegations. ( 4 ) WHEN cognizance is taken, after receipt of charge sheet, it is difficult to interfere with the same unless some materials are brought out to indicate that accepting entire materials collected by the investigating agency, no case has been made out. That is not the case made out by the petitioners. Besides, after appearance, when charge would be framed against the accused persons, they can agitate the same question for their discharge. Falsity of the offence made out can only be determined at trial. ( 5 ) MR. That is not the case made out by the petitioners. Besides, after appearance, when charge would be framed against the accused persons, they can agitate the same question for their discharge. Falsity of the offence made out can only be determined at trial. ( 5 ) MR. P. Palit, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have compounded the offence with the informant and accordingly, a direction should be given to the trial court for compounding the offence on an application being filed to that effect in the trial court. Normally, prayer is reasonable. However, from out of the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken, some are not compoundable. When the offences are not compoundable no court has jurisdiction under any provision of Cr. P. C. either to compound the offence or to permit such compounding specially, when, the legislative intention is that the offence would not be permitted to be compounded. Parliament in its wisdom has classified the offence as compoundable without permission of the Court, compoundable with permission of the court and others not compoundable. Inherent jurisdiction u/ S. 482 Cr. P. C. cannot be exercised to defeat the legislative intention. ( 6 ) MR. Palit has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1989 Cri LJ 121 : AIR 1988 SC 2111 (Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan) where relying upon an earlier decision as reported in 1987 (3) JT 361 (Y. Suresh Babu v. State of A. P.) and after examining the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence was committed it was observed that it may be proper that trial court shall permit the parties to compound the offence u/s. 307 I. P. C. which is not compoundable. Accordingly, Supreme Court directed the trial court to accord permission to compound the offence after giving an opportunity to the parties and after being satisfied that the compromise agreed upon. In 1987 (2) JT 361 (supra) prayer was made for leave to compound the offence after conviction of the accused u/s. 326 I. P. C. which is not compoundable. This was accepted by Supreme Court which granted leave to parties to compound subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- by accused to informant who suffered injury on account of stabbing. An over all view of the facts and circumstances was taken. This was accepted by Supreme Court which granted leave to parties to compound subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- by accused to informant who suffered injury on account of stabbing. An over all view of the facts and circumstances was taken. ( 7 ) IN special cases, Supreme Court may have the power to direct compounding of non-compoundable offence. High Court has no such power and accordingly, I am not inclined to exercise inherent power u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. which would be contrary to the legislative intent. ( 8 ) NON-EXERCISE of inherent power in the present case may result in the accused persons facing a futile trial where parties have settled their differences, outcome of which was the offence alleged. Section 321 Cr. P. C. authorises the State Government to direct the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution whether State Government would withdraw from prosecution is within its discretion and no direction can be given to the State Government in exercise of the inherent power or under any of the provisions of the Code. Where, however, such discretion has been exercised arbitrarily to refuse withdrawal in just cases. This court in exercise of writ jurisdiction can give direction to the State Government to reconsider the question. Withdrawal from prosecution is to be with leave of the Court where court grants or refuses leave unjustifiably, this Court can interfere with the order of the Court. ( 9 ) MR. H. Kanungo learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that State Government had already considered the matter and decided not to direct the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution. Declining to direct Public Prosecutor u/s. 321 Cr. P. C for withdrawing from prosecution at one stage does not debar the State Government from considering the question again. It is not known whether such consideration was made at a time when parties have settled their disputes. In that view of the matter, I am of the firm view that State Government should consider the question of withdrawal from prosecution afresh if it is satisfied that parties have settled their dispute. Since occurrence is of the year 25/03/1989 and persons of the legal professions and others are being prosecuted, State Government shall consider the question within six weeks from today and give a direction to the Public Prosecutor u/ S. 321 Cr. P. C. if it decides to withdraw from prosecution. Since occurrence is of the year 25/03/1989 and persons of the legal professions and others are being prosecuted, State Government shall consider the question within six weeks from today and give a direction to the Public Prosecutor u/ S. 321 Cr. P. C. if it decides to withdraw from prosecution. Proceeding before learned Magistrate shall remain stayed for six weeks more. ( 10 ) WITH the aforesaid observations, this Criminal Revision is disposed of. Order accordingly.