JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a Criminal Case No. 271 /75 pending in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur in F.I.R. No. 26/75 of Police Station Chandwa Ji. 2. One Madan Lal had lodged a F.I.R. on 13.3.1975 regarding an incident which had taken place earlier in the day on which the police registered a case for offence under Sections 511, 147 and 324 IPC. During the course of investigation fracture of left parietal bone was found and hence case altered into one under Section 326 IPC. The police after investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 326 IPC. It would be pertinent to mention here that a report was lodged against the complainant in this case, i.e. by Madan Lal also which was registered as F.I.R. No. 27/75 at the same Police Station. When both the cases were pending trial applications were moved in both the cases for recording a compromise and acquit the accused in terms of the same. It was mentioned in the application under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. that case is going on since 1975 and both, the complainant injured Madan Lal and accused Sri Narain, are close relations living in the same village and by the intervention of the relations they have patched up all their differences and disputes which had taken place and hence they filed this compromise petition. It was mentioned in the application that in cross case No. 263/ 75(257/84) for offences under Sections 325 and 323 IPC also compromise may be recorded. It was mentioned in the application itself that High Court in Harinarain v. State of Rajasthan, 1989 RCC 335 and Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand & Anr. v. State of Raj; AIR 1988 SC 2111 ; have also permitted compromise, hence looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case permission for compromise may be accorded. Compromise petition was signed by all the parties. Learned Magistrate did not record the compromise as the offence was not compoundable but made a reference to this Court vide his order dated 16.9.89. It appears that the letter was addressed to the Registrar wherein the answer to the question framed was sought. This letter remained unanswered for a long period and ultimately it appears from the record that the Addl. It appears that the letter was addressed to the Registrar wherein the answer to the question framed was sought. This letter remained unanswered for a long period and ultimately it appears from the record that the Addl. Registrar informed the Munsif Magistrate that the learned Magistrate would first seek the guidance of learned District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. It further appears that this letter was written by the Registrar in pursuance of the same order passed in S.B. Criminal Reference No. 471 /90 (Defective). The learned Sessions judge informed learned Munsif that after going through all the decisions referred to in the order there does not appear to be any power in the Court to compound the offence under Section 326 IPC. He however, in his letter, dated 16th January, 1991 addressed to the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate did not refer to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to above. Consequently the application for compromise could not be accepted and hence this petition was filed. 3. I have gone through the entire record of the case. In my opinion learned Sessions Judge was right in answering the reference made by the learned Magistrate that the Magistrate has no power to make a non-compoundable offence into a compoundable offence and thereby compromise the case but, it is also true that their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mahesh chand & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (supra) directed the offence to be compounded under Section 307 IPC also and following the decision there had been some cases where the compromise has been directed. I have already explained this situation in series of cases which arose under Section 498A IPC wherein referring to the decision of the Supreme Court, I had held that so far as the Trial Courts are concerned they have no jurisdiction, express or implied, to record a compromise in a non-compoundable case, but at the same time, I have observed that the High Court and the Supreme Court have inherent powers to pass any order under the Code to secure the ends of justice, hence if it comes to the knowledge of the High Court that in recording the compromise of the case ends of justice would be secured it is essential to pass such orders. I had held that when the parties are very close relations and the offences are very old or they are matrimonial offences and no grave damage has been caused Fund it does not involve a very serious offence like that of murder, dacoity, arson, rape etc., then looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and nature and gravity of the offence committed, if the ends of justice so desire, this Court can always invoke its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such as in the instant case where two close relations came to blows and the complainant in this case there had been a lenier fracture on the head which has subsequently been cured also and he too had inflicted injury on the other side which too resulted in a fracture but by a blunt object and if both the parties have patched up their differences, it is a fit case where to save time, money and energy of the litigants as well as of the Court it would be in fitness of the circumstances that compromise should be permitted. Even otherwise not to allow the compromise may also result in such circumstances to the same end because the complainant in that case would not support the prosecution story and Court instead of advancing the cause of justice would encourage perjury and if this is not done a trail of evil thoughts will again start in the minds of the parties for having another innings of battle. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case I am firmly of the opinion that this case must be given a decent burial as it is not purpose full in continuing the dead horse beyond 18 years where the cross case is already compromised and the accused is acquitted.I therefore, accept this application and accept the compromise petition in the inherent powers of this Court to secure the ends of justice and acquit the accused in terms of the compromise. The proceedings stand quashed.Petition allowed. *******