ORDER :

1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg whereby application moved for compromise between the petitioner and the complainant after recording of conviction by the learned trial Court, has been rejected.

2. The case, in nutshell, is that a complaint case under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. was filed against the petitioner by the original complainant, namely, Bhagwan Das and same was registered as Complaint Case No.6849/2015 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC. After full dressed trial, the petitioner was convicted under Section 420, 467, 468 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- for each of these offences along with sentence of R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.200/- for offence under Section 471 of the IPC vide order dated 14.10.2019 and S.I. for 7 days was inflicted upon the petitioner in case of each default in payment of the fine amount. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court dated 14.10.2019 was challenged in appeal before the learned Sessions Court and during pendency of the appeal, a joint application was moved to record compromise on 31.05.2022. The statement of wife of original complainant, namely Smt. Triveni was recorded on 08.06.2022 where she stated that they have amicably settled the dispute without any coercion, greed or pressure and she does not want to pursue the criminal case further against the petitioner. The learned Sessions Court vide order dated 03.08.2022 held that the petitioner has been convicted by the learned trial Court and sections under which he has been convicted are serious one and thus no compromise can be recorded under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. It was further observed that the offences are not compoundable in nature according to the provisions of Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. and thus, rejected the application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application was moved after conviction and during pendency of appeal before the Sessions Court, and joint application was moved for recording compromise and acquittal of the petitioner, however same has been rejected and further decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court have not been considered by the learned Court below.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would support the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the State would oppose the arguments so advanced.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Court for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and thereafter appeal was preferred which is pending before the learned Sessions Court wherein a joint application was moved by the petitioner and the wife of the complainant to record compromise and the statement of the wife of the original complainant was also recorded, but the learned appellate Court rejected the aforesaid application.

8. In the matter of Deva Ram Vs. The State of Rajashan, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 275, while dealing with the similar issue in para 4, 5, 6 and 7 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

4. An application has been filed in this Court by the appellant praying that in view of the settlement, offence may be permitted to be compounded. It is stated that the original complainant and the appellant are close relatives. It is stated that the original complainant expired on 30-05-1994. Thereafter, the son of the complainant is not keen on prosecuting the proceedings. The appellant is a senior citizen who suffers from various ailments. It is further stated that due to intervention of the elders of the village, dispute between the parties is resolved. The appellant has agreed to pay settlement amount to Arjun Ram. It is further stated in the application that the appellant has paid the