JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel. None appears to participate in the hearing so far as opposite parties 2 and 3 are concerned. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case their participation is also not found necessary. 2. Petitioner has filed this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 7.7.1997 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Sadar, Cuttack in 2(c) CC No. 121/94. 3. Upon hearing the parties at length, as noted above, this criminal misc. case is disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission. 4. Petitioner is the accused in the aforesaid 2(c) CO No. 121/94. Cognizance of the offence under Sections188/406, I.P.C. has been taken against him on the allegation that, in spite of the direction of the trial Court Le. J.M.F.C., in G.R. Case No. 2399/92 and Misc. Case No. 232/92, Petitioner did not produce the seized vehicle and the order dt.13.5.94 of that Court in Misc. Case No. 232/92 was not complied with which amounted to disobeying the order of the Court. 5. Learned Counsel for Petitioner states that on 26.4.1994 learned J.M.F.C. directed the Petitioner to produce the seized vehicle on 10.5.1994. Petitioner preferred Crl. Revision No. 57/94 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Cuttack challenging that order but the revision was dismissed in liming. On 13.5.1994, while in seized of the matter, learned J.M.F.C. rejected the time petition filed by the Petitioner and directed him to produce the seized vehicle by 12.30 p.m. That order being not complied with by the Petitioner above said proceeding was initiated and cognizance of the offence under Sections188/406, I.P.C. was taken against him. 6. Learned Counsel for Petitioner further states that in the meantime Petitioner preferred Crl. Misc. Case No. 1220/94 in this Court challenging the order of the Sessions Judge in Crl. Revision No. 57/94 and in the said order this Court directed that in view of pendency of the civil dispute' between the parties, on furnishing property security of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the J.M.F.C. the matter relating to production of the vehicle be kept in abeyance. He further submits that in the meantime the civil dispute between the Petitioner and opposite party No. 2 relating to the self-same vehicle has been compromised. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the J.M.F.C. the matter relating to production of the vehicle be kept in abeyance. He further submits that in the meantime the civil dispute between the Petitioner and opposite party No. 2 relating to the self-same vehicle has been compromised. In that connection, he files the order dt.ll.7.98 in T.S. No. 76/96 of the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Second Court, Cuttack and a copy of the compromise petition. He further states that after furnishing property security, as per the order of this Court, Misc. Case No. 232/92 was dropped on 1.9.1998 and he also files certified copy of that order. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner thus argues that in view of the aforesaid compromise so far as the offence under Sec 406, I.P.C. is concerned, that dispute No. more exists and so far as the offence u/s 188, I.P.C. is concerned, it was never existing inasmuch as the Petitioner never disobeyed or violated the order of the Magistrate. Accordingly, he prays to quash the proceeding. 7. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1 does not dispute the factual aspect. However, he opposes to the prayer to quash the proceeding on the ground that in spite of the compromise, there exists prima facie case and the offence u/s 188, I.P.C. is not compoundable. 8. So far as the offence u/s 406, I.P.C. is concerned which is compoundable in accordance with provision of law in Section 320(2), Code of Criminal Procedure In view of the compromise between the parties they may work out the remedy, if so advised, by filing proper application in 2(c) GC No. 121/94. Since that remedy is available to the Petitioner invoking of the inherent power in this case is not necessary. 9. So far as it relates to offence u/s 188, I.P.C. is concerned, learned S.D.J.M. while considering similar application of the Petitioner has observed that presence or absence of means read as per the contention of the Petitioner is a factual aspect which can be gone into at the time of trial and not at this stage. Accordingly, he refused to recall and interfere with the cognizance order. 10. Learned Counsel for Petitioner strenuously argues that since the Petitioner had half an hour time to comply with the order dt. Accordingly, he refused to recall and interfere with the cognizance order. 10. Learned Counsel for Petitioner strenuously argues that since the Petitioner had half an hour time to comply with the order dt. 18.5.1994 therefore he did not disobey the direction of the Magistrate but he was not capable of complying with the same and therefore the alleged misconduct of the Petitioner can not be regarded as an offence u/s 188, I.P.C. It may be noted here that whether or not Petitioner had the intention to disobey the order, that being essentially a factual aspect, can only be determined at the time of trial inasmuch as there is prima facie evidence regarding disobeying the order of the Magistrate. While in seizing of the matter u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court should not make a pretrial enquiry to ascertain innocence or guilt of the Petitioner. When continuation of the case against the Petitioner neither results in abuse of the process of Court nor in failure of ends of justice, the same should not be quashed by invoking inherent power u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure 11. Learned Counsel for Petitioner further argues that in view of the order dt. 17.10.1996 in Crl. Misc. Case N 0.1220/94 and the subsequent compromise between the parties, all the disputes between both the parties having been settled No. useful purpose will be served by continuing the criminal case against him. This argument is though attractive but the same is neither legal nor acceptable. Simple reason for the same is that cognizance of the offence u/s 188; I.P.C. has been taken for willful disobedience of the Court's order. Therefore, any compromise between the informant and the accused relating to the vehicle is No. way relevant. After committing offence u/s 188, I.P.C., compromise between the private parties can not be regarded as the end of the matter. 12. No. other contention is advanced from the side of the petition. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and findings this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly the application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected. Learned S.D.J.M. shall proceed with the case and dispose of the same in accordance with law and without being influenced by anything discussed or stated in this order.