JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2. Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 26-10-89 for quashing the order to the extent that the learned Magistrate has refused to compound the case under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short the Act). 2. Facts of this case are that non-petitioner No. 2 Smt. Saroj w/o Mahendra Kumar had filed a complaint against the petitioners for offences under Sections 352, 341, 323 IPC and Section 4 of the Act. During the pendency of the case, a joint application by the petitioner and the non-petitioner was presented for compounding the case against the petitioners. The trial Court compound the case for offences under Sections 3^2, 341 and 323 IPC but refused the application for compounding the case under Section 4 of the Act since the same is non compoundable offence. It is pertinent to mention here that father-in-law of the respondent non-petitioner Smt. Saroj i.e. Sushil Kumar, filed a FIR against Saroj and her husband Mahendra Kumar that she caused injuries to the ear of Smt. Kapoor Kumari. petitioner in this case. The police after investigation presented the charge-sheet for offence under Sections 326, 341, 328 and 4 2 IPC against Smt. Saroj. Application for compromise was also filed in that case. The trial Court permitted to compromise the offence under Sections 341 and 323 IPC but refused the permission for offence, under Sections 326 and 452 IPC. 3. Relying on a decision of this Court in Hari Narain and others v. State of Rajasthan (1989 RCC 335) Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Kapur vide judgment dated 20.12.89 permitted the compounding of the offence. However, the present case, which is the case in between the same parties, could not be disposed of as it was filed late in this court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the fact that both the parties have compounded the offence and cross case has already been compounded coupled with the fact that parties are near relations being daughter- in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law, permission to compound the offences should be granted. It is submitted that their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan (1989 Cr.L R. (SC) 630 ) permitted the parties to compound the offences even when the offence was not compoundable. It is submitted that their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan (1989 Cr.L R. (SC) 630 ) permitted the parties to compound the offences even when the offence was not compoundable. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the aforesaid cases. 6. It is not disputed that Smt. Saroj, who is a complainant non-petitioner in this case, was an accused in a complaint filed by Smt. Sushila Kumari, petitioner in this case, and that case has been permitted to be compromised. The complainant and the petitioners have started living together and a joint application has been moved by them that for maintenance of the harmony and good relations between the family members, they want the case to be compounded. Offence under the Dowry Act has been made non-compoundable, and in my humble opinion, it would be laying down a wrong precedent by permitting the non-compoundable offence to be compounded and holding the trial Courts order to be incorrect. In fact, the trial Court when passed the order was fully justified in refusing the application since the offence has been made non-compoundable and trial Court cannot make a non compoundable offence into a compoundable one. However, the Court has wide powers under Section 432 Cr. P.C. to pass any order in order to secure the ends of justice. In the special circumstances of the case that the accused and the complainant parties are members of the same family and are now staying together, in my opinion, it will be perpetuating a wrong by permitting the trial to continue. In this view of the matter, ends of justice would meet in case the proceedings pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in criminal case No. 102/87 are quashed in the inherent powers of this Court. 7. I accordingly quash the proceedings. The petition is disposed of as aforesaid. *******