JUDGMENT M. R. Verma, J.: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.9.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, whereby he granted permission, as a special case to the prosecutrix, to compound the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. 2. The brief and relevant facts are that on a complaint made by one Ali Ram that his minor daughter has been kidnapped with the intention that she may marry accused Bhim Sain, by accused Bhim Sain, Narotam Ram and Mani Devi, the Superintendent of Police, Kullu directed the S.H.O., Police Station, Kullu to register a case under Section 363 and 366 IPC. An FIR was accordingly registered at Police Station, Kullu. After investigation, the officer in-charge of the said Police Station submitted a charge sheet against the accused person under Sections 363 and 366 IPC in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu. The charge was framed against the accused under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and the case was listed for prosecution evidence on 18.9.1997. On that date, the witness were though present, complainant Ali Ram and prosecutrix Jai Devi informed the Court that Jai Devi prosecutrix is residing with accused Bhim Sain as his wife and they are married, therefore, they have moved an application for compounding the case and in case her statement is recorded it would spoil the relations between the parties, and would ruin the family life of the prosecutrix and accused Bhim Sain. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge granted permission to compound the offences as aforesaid and immediately thereafter proceeded to record the statements of Jai Devi and AH Ram and in view of such statements and the compromise Ex. CA, acquitted the accused of the offences with which they were charged. 3. I have heard the learned Addl. Advocate General and the learned counsel for the respondents and have also through the records. 4. Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with compounding of offences. It has classified the compoundable cases in two tables, the first deal with such offences where parties can compound at their own without the intervention of the Court and the second table enlists such offences which the concerned parties can compound with the permission of the Court. Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with compounding of offences. It has classified the compoundable cases in two tables, the first deal with such offences where parties can compound at their own without the intervention of the Court and the second table enlists such offences which the concerned parties can compound with the permission of the Court. The offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 IPC are not compoundable within the provisions of Section 320 even with the permission of the Court, from which it naturally follows that the Court cannot grant permission for compouding such cases, compounding whereof is not permissible within the framework of Section 320 Cr. P.C. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge, by allowing compounding of the offences which were non-compoundable, has exercised the jurisdiction which did not vest in him, rendering the impugned order manifestly illegal and, therefore, un-sustainable. 5. As a result, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. 6. However, before parting with the ease, it may be observed that as stated hereinabove, the presecutrix and accused Bhim Sain are now leading a happy married life. Out of the wedlock, one son and one daughter are already born. The complainant and the prosecutrix, in the interest of a happy married life of the prosecutrix and accused Bhim Sain, have the intention to bring the prosecution of the accused to an end, so that there is no family turmoil or disruption because of the prosecutrix and her father being forced to make statements against the accused persons, which statements may even lead to the conviction of the husband of the prosecutrix and her parents-in-law. 7. Against the aforesaid background, if the prosecution continues and the prosecutrix and the complainant are to support the prosecution version, that definitely will be against the interest of the accused person and ultimately against the cordial relations of the members of the family of the accused including the prosecutrix. 7. Against the aforesaid background, if the prosecution continues and the prosecutrix and the complainant are to support the prosecution version, that definitely will be against the interest of the accused person and ultimately against the cordial relations of the members of the family of the accused including the prosecutrix. The other course open to the prosecutrix and the complainant is to resile from their previous statements by giving false evidence in the Court If they do so and the Court does not take action against them for perjury, the administration of justice are likely to create an impression in the minds of the general public that in the event of giving a false statement in the Court, no action will be taken. Thus, the interest of justice in this case can be best served by discontinuation of the further prosecution of the accused persons. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case as set out hereinabove, it will be but proper if the State examines the matter with a view to take a decision whether instead of continuing the prosecution of the accused, withdrawal of the case under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will serve the ends of justice in this case. 8. In view of the discussion in para 7 above, a copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary (Home) to the Government of H.P. for such further action on the basis of the aforesaid observations as may be found in the interest of justice and convey the decision which may be.-taken by the State, to the Public Prosecutor, Kullu within 45 days of the date of this judgmentParties to appear in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu on October 29, 1999. Records be returned.