JUDGMENT : INDIRA JAIN, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Code, petitioner challenges the order dated 20.3.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur in Criminal Case No. 2398/2008 arising out of Crime No. 94/2008 dated 5.4.2008. 2. The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated in brief as under: (a) Petitioner, a Charitable Trust, runs various educational institutions in the city of Nagpur. To meet the ends of educational institutions, petitioner developed some properties in the locality of Gandhibagh and Sadar into commercial/shopping complex. The commercial units in the shopping complex were let out to various tenants in consideration of monthly rent. (b) The submission is that respondent No. 1 represented himself as representative of petitioner-institution, illegally recovered rent from two tenants in the name of petitioner, forged the signature of General Secretary, opened a fraudulent account in the name of Anjuman-e-Islam by presenting forged and fabricated documents and closed the said account on 21.2.2004. (c) Police authorities were informed by letter dated 4.3.2008. Crime No. 94/2008 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No. 1 at Tahsil Police Station, Nagpur. On completion of investigation, Charge Sheet No. 133/2008 was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 11.6.2008. (d) On 19.1.2013, learned Magistrate referred the matter for mediation. Respondent No. 1 appeared before the learned Mediator and vide application dated 18.3.2013 (Exh.16) accepted his liability to repay Rs. 1,02,000/- as principal and Rs. 1,02,000/- towards interest to the petitioner. (e) The representative of petitioner-institution was also the signatory to the writing dated 18.3.2013. On receipt of the report of learned Mediator, complaint was disposed of by the learned Magistrate on 20.3.2013. It is this order which is the subject matter of the instant petition. 3. Heard Shri Masood Shareef, learned counsel for petitioner and Mrs. N.P. Mehta, learned APP for respondent No. 2. Perused F.I.R. and orders dated 19.1.2013 and 20.3.2013 passed by the trial court. 4. It is significant to note that F.I.R. was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge sheet was submitted to the Court on police complaint. N.P. Mehta, learned APP for respondent No. 2. Perused F.I.R. and orders dated 19.1.2013 and 20.3.2013 passed by the trial court. 4. It is significant to note that F.I.R. was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge sheet was submitted to the Court on police complaint. The offences under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code are not compoundable. It appears that learned Mediator accepted writing dated 18.3.2013 signed by respondent No. 1 and one Salim Akthar, who was in the employment of petitioner, as terms of settlement and submitted report on the same day to the court that amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties as per agreement attached. The order dated 20.3.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate makes it clear that the said agreement is at Exh.16 and Exh.16 is nothing but writing dated 18.3.2013 by respondent No. 1 and one Salim Akthar. Parties did not submit separate consent terms or terms of settlement before the learned Mediator. 5. Needless to state that section 320 (9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts a limit on the power of the trial court to compound the offences other than those specified in sub-section (1) and (2) of the said section. As mentioned above, offences under Sections 468 and 471 were non-compoundable. Police machinery was set into motion and the final report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the form of charge-sheet was presented to the court. In such a situation, it was not legally permissible to the learned Magistrate to refer the matter to the learned Mediator. The whole exercise was in excessive jurisdiction and futile. This court, therefore, finds that the impugned order is unsustainable in law. Hence, the following order: (i) Criminal Writ Petition No. 198 of 2015 is allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 20.3.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur in Criminal Case No. 2398/2008 is quashed and set aside. (iii) Criminal Case No. 2398/2008 is restored to the file of the learned Magistrate for its disposal in accordance with the law. (iv) No order as to costs. (v) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Petition allowed.