JUDGMENT Honble Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 20.4.2007 by which learned Addl. Sessions Judge/FTC-1, Ghazipur in ST. No. 23 of 1999 has rejected two applications. One application was with prayer to decide the case in terms of the compromise and second application was with a prayer that P.W. 1, 2 and 3 may be recalled for re-cross-examination under Section 311, Cr.P.C. it is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that both the parties have entered into compromise, they do not want to proceed further. Proceeding is trial-able by Court of sessions i.e. under Section 304, IPC, in such circumstances, the witness will not support the prosecution story. The result of the case will be acquittal of the accused, therefore, the futile exercise should not be done, such view has been taken by the another bench of this Court in the case of Yahiya Khan and Raziullah Khan v. State of U.P., 2006 (56) ACC 853. 2. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that the offence is not compoundable, therefore, no such direction may be issued for disposal of the case in terms of the compromise and no ground has been taken for recalling the witnesses P.W. 1, 2 and 3 under Section 311, Cr.P.C. From the perusal of the record and the impugned order it appears that in the present case the application has been filed by the applicants so that case may be decided in terms of the compromise which have been filed by the parties concerned. In the light of that compromise, the recall of the witnesses is necessary, so that they may be declared hostile, for the same purpose the application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to recall the P.W. 1, 2 and 3. Both the applications have been rejected by the trial Court. 3. In reply of the above contention it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that the issues involved in the present case it is not necessary to consider the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. in which two tables have been given. One table is for the offence in which without order of the Court, the compromise should be done and case can be compounded. 4. One table is for the offence in which without order of the Court, the compromise should be done and case can be compounded. 4. The second list is having some cases in which under the direction of the Court the cases can be compounded. Sub-section (3) of Section 320, Cr.P.C. also provides that offence given therein may also be compounded. But there is a specific bar in sub-section (9) of Section 320, Cr.P.C. means that no offence shall be compounded except the offence provided in the Section 320, Cr.P.C. There is a clear bar or it can be said that compounding is prohibited by sub-section (9) of Section 320, Cr.P.C. In such situation for an offence which is non compoundable the proceedings can not be decided in terms of the agreement. In such circumstances the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the applicants. Therefore, the case referred by the learned counsel for the applicants is concerned i.e. Yahiya Khan and Raziullah Khan v. State of U.P., 2006 (56) ACC 853. In this case the provisions of Section 320, Cr.P.C. have not been considered because there is complete bar for compounding the offence as provided by sub Section (9) of Section 320, Cr.P.C. The case cited by learned counsel for the applicants is per incurium because the provisions of the law have not been discussed therein and it is not applicable in the present case. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 482, Cr.P.C. no direction can be given in which law does not permit, in the present case there is a complete provision of compounding the offence which have not been given in the tables of Section 320, Cr.P.C. Accordingly this application is dismissed. ———