JUDGMENT : 1. Shri V. K. Rishi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Akhilesh Singh, P.L. for respondent No. 1-State. Arguments heard. 2. This is a petition, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), for quashing the judgment-dated 24-11-2011 passed by Shri Ahmad Raja, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsinghpur in Criminal Case No. 3400/2010, whereby each one of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, respectively husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the petitioner, have been convicted and sentenced as under - Convicted under Section Sentenced to 498-A of the IPC undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for 1 month. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for 1 month. With the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. According to the petitioner, all the disputes prevailing between her and the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been settled amicably and therefore, she is not interested in making them to suffer the sentences. However, the compromise application filed in the corresponding Criminal Appeal No. 221/11 has been rejected vide order dated 1-2-2012 passed by First ASJ, Narsinghpur on the ground that none of the offences is compoundable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Kamlakar Mahadevrao Patil vs. State of M. P., 2004 (2) MPHT 278 , has submitted that the judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside in the light of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 1386 . But, the fact remains that in B. S. Joshi's case, it was the FIR relating to the offences including the one under section 498-A of the IPC, that was quashed with the observation that in view of the compromise, chance of an ultimate conviction was bleak whereas, as pointed out already, in the instant case, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have already been convicted upon a full trial. 5. 2, 3 and 4 have already been convicted upon a full trial. 5. Further, the Apex Court, in Arvind Barsaul (Dr.) vs. State of M.P., (2008) 5 SCC 794 , did not interfere with the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, rejecting an identical prayer made in almost a similar situation and proceeded to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction, under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to do complete justice whereas no such power is available to this Court. As an obvious corollary, order of conviction and sentence cannot be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of the Code. 6. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed. Needless to say that factum of compromise can be taken into account while determining the quantum of sentences, in case the appellate Court finds the convictions to be well merited.