K. S. GUPTA ( 1 ). In this petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. , petitioners-accused seek quashment of FIR No. 126/2001 under sections 323/325/34 Indian Penal Code PS Maurice Nagar. ( 2 ). Copy of FIR which was registered on the basis of statement of respondent No. 2, a student of b. Com (Hons), is placed on pages 18 and 19 on the file. It is alleged in FIR that in the college elections to be held on 7th September 2001, Ram Chander and Rajat Singh rathore were the candidates. In the meeting of new students called around 8. 45 PM on 4th September 2001, sachin Saurab, Rajat Singh Rathore, Amit Raj and Rohit bhatia (petitioners-accused) used abusive language to Ram chander on which complainant, Manpreet, Naveen and Ram chander raised objection. All of them came in the lawn of hostel while talking. There, Rajat Singh Rathore, rohit Bhatia and Sachin Saurab said that they will not succumb in such a way and be beaten. Rajat Singh Rathore told Rohit Bhatia and Sachin Saurab to bring sticks. Rajat Singh Rathore hit the complainant while Manpreet hit Rohit Bhatia. Sachin Saurab hit Naveen Suhag with a stick. Amit Raj also beat Ram Chandra with fists and legs. Due to beating complainant received injuries on his right hand index finger while Manpreet on his head. Naveen received injuries on his left hand and finger. ( 3 ). Contention advanced by Sh. H. S. Bhullar whom I heard oh the point of admission, was that offences under sections 325/323/34 are compoundable and as both the parties with the intervention of well wishers and common friends have settled their differences, FIR in question may be quashed. In Para No. 8 (at page 50) of the decision in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 , Apex court had culled out the exceptions subject to which inherent power under section 482 Cr. In Para No. 8 (at page 50) of the decision in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 , Apex court had culled out the exceptions subject to which inherent power under section 482 Cr. P. C. could be exercised, as under:- " (1) That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party; (2) That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; (3) That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the code. ( 4 ). As per Table appended to sub section (1) of section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure offence under section 323 Indian Penal Code can be compounded by the person to whom the hurt is caused. Further, as per Table appended to sub section (2) of said section offence under section 325 Indian Penal Code can be compounded with the permission of court by the person to whom the hurt is caused. As both the offences for which FIR has been registered are compoundable, the parties may file application under section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure for compounding the offences after the chargesheet is filed. Obviously, present case falls under aforesaid exception (1) and fir, therefore, cannot be quashed by taking recourse to the provision of Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure Petition is, therefore, dismissed.