ORDER 1. The accused-applicants have directed this petition U/S. 182 CrPC for quashing the order dated 2.2.1995 rendered by JMFC Ratlam in Criminal Case No. 251/94 thereby refusing to compound the offence and acquitting the applicants from the charges under Section 498-A IPC on the application filed U/S. 320 (2) of the CrPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case lie in a narrow compass are, that on the report of non-applicant No.2 Smt. Indira Kumari, wife of applicant No.4 Vijay Kumar, an offence U/S. 498-A IPC was registered against the applicants at PS Station Road, Ratlam. On investigation, Police filed the chalan against the applicants U/S. 498-A IPC. The learned Magistrate framed charges against the applicants for the offence punishable U/S. 498-A IPC. During the course of the trial the applicants and non-applicant No.2 filed compromise along with the petition for grant of permission to compound the offence U/S. 320 (2) of CrPC. The learned Magistrate, refused to compound the offence on the ground that the offence charged against the applicant is not compoundable U/S. 320 of the CrPC. Aggrieved, the applicants have filed this petition U/S. 482 CrPC for quashing of the impugned order and acquitting applicants from the offence punishable U/S. 498-A IPC after accepting the compromise. 3. I have heard Ku. Suman Tamrakar, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Upadhyaya, learned PL appearing for the non-applicant State. 4. The only contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that though the offence charged against the applicants is not compoundable U/S. 320 of the CrPC but as the parties have compromised the matter in connection of the dispute existed between husband and wife, it is in the interest of both the parties that permission to compound the said offence be granted in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court U/S. 482 CrPC. The learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in case of Ratandev Handa v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1993-C.Cr.J-NOC-2) and the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Gurucharan Kaur v. State of Rajasthan (I 993-CrLJ 2076). 5. As against this, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State supported the impugned order of the Magistrate and submitted that as the offence punishable U/S. 498-A IPC is not compoundable VIS. 5. As against this, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State supported the impugned order of the Magistrate and submitted that as the offence punishable U/S. 498-A IPC is not compoundable VIS. 320 (1) or (2) CrPC and in view of the provision of Section 320 (9) of the Code the Magistrate concerned committed no error in refusing to compound the said offence. 6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it emerged that all the applicants-accused have been charged for the offence punishable U/S. 498-A IPC which is not compoundable U/S. 320 (1) and (2) of the CrPC. As such, in view of the provisions of Section 320 (9) of the CrPC the Courts exercising jurisdiction under the Code cannot compound the offences not provided under Section 320 (I) of (2) of the CrPC. Section 320 (9) of the CrPC provides that 'no offence shall be compounded except as provided by the Section'. In view of the provisions contained in the CrPC the learned Magistrate committed no error in refusing to compound the said offence punishable U/S. 498-A IPC. 7. On the point of compounding of the said offence in exercise of the powers U/S. 482 CrPC is concerned, in my opinion, such powers cannot be exercised by this Court in a case where the matter in controversy is covered by specific provisions of any law. In case of Khushiram v. Hashiram ( AIR 1959 SC 542 ), the Apex Court has held that the inherent powers of the High Court U/S. 561-A of the Code (corresponding to Section 482 of the present Code) cannot be invoked in regard to the matter which are directly covered by the specific provisions of the Code and the High Court is clearly in error in invoking that Section in quashing a commitment proceedings which is a matter directly covered by Section 215 (of the Code of 1898). 8. 8. In case of State of M.P. v. Saud and Others, the judgment/order dated 14th March 1995 in Criminal Appeal No. 15/91, Hon'ble Justice Shri U.L. Bhat; the then Chief Justice of this Court, considering a case on the same controversy has held as under :- "The jurisdiction of the High Court is invoked under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure either in revision or appeal and the restrictions imposed on the power of Criminal Court in the matter of granting permission to compound is as much applicable to the Court of Magistrate and Court of Sessions Judge as to the High Court. To say that the Supreme Court in the given case adopted a particular course of action in one thing to say that the High Court or even an inferior Court can do whatever the Supreme Court did is quite a different thing. The jurisdiction of the High Court should be traced to some provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under the scheme of Section 320 no person has right to compound any offence not specifically mentioned therein. I am, therefore, unable to consider the decision of the learned Single Judge in Nathu Khan's case as laying down a binding precedent". 9. Hon'ble Justice Shri V.L. Bhat, in the aforesaid judgment, referred various decisions of the Apex Court and distinguished the decision of Single Judge of this Court in Nathu Khan's case (1995 (1)-MPWN-235) and held that the decision of the learned Single Judge in Nathu Khan's case (supra) is not laying down a binding precedent. On the similar analogy, in my humble opinion, the view expressed by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in case of Ratandev Handa (supra) cannot be considered to be binding precedent for deciding the matter in controversy. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and relying on the subsequent judgment of this Court in case of State of M.P. v. Saud and Others (supra) it is held that the offences not included in the list of compoundable cases VIS. 320 (1) and (2) CrPC cannot be ordered to be compounded in exercise of the powers VIS. 482 of CrPC. 11. Consequently, this petition is devoid of any merit and substance and the same is accordingly dismissed; but without any order as to the costs.