( 1 ) BY this common order, I am deciding the prayer made for permitting the disposal of the appeals in terms of settlement reached between the parties. The appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 401/1999 are Rohtas, narender Kumar and Ram Kumar, while appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 415/ 1999 is Mahesh Kumar.

( 2 ) VIDE judgment dated 9th August, 1999, all the four appellants namely mahesh Kumar, Rohtas, Narender Kumar, and Ram Kumar prosecuted under section 307 read with section 34, IPC, were sentenced to RI for a period of 10 years for offence under Sections 307/34, IPC and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default, SI for a period of three months. Out of the fine, sum of Rs. 15000/- to be paid as compensation to injured Balraj after expiry of the period of limitation for filing an appeal.

( 3 ) APPEALS were admitted and notices in applications were issued. Substantive sentences awarded to the appellants under section 389, Cr. P. C were suspended on their furnishing bail of Rs. 10. 000/- each by personal bond with one solvent surety each in the like amount, vide order dated 29th September, 1999. It is stated that appellants have duly deposited the fine.

( 4 ) MR. K. B. Andley, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that these are fit cases where the Court should permit compounding of the offences in view of settlement reached between the parties. The injured balraj S/o Sh. Balbir Singh, who had suffered grievous injuries, along with his counsel Sh. O. P. Sharma was present. He confirms that the matter has been compromised and he has been compensated. As such, he did not pursue the suit for damages filed in the Trial Court. He also joins in the prayer for permission to compound the offences.

( 5 ) MR. Andley in support of his submission for permitting compounding of the offence, submits that even though the appellants have a good case on merits and there are several contradictions in the prosecution witnesses, permission for compounding is being sought in view of settlement reached between the appellants and the injured who has been duly and adequately compensated. The parties who belong to the same village and community are living peacefully since then. It is urged that the the Trial Judge had ignored the dd entry No. 34. As per the said entry, Sudan Pandit had driven his truck over the injured at the venue of Holi celebrations. The said Sudan Pandit had not been arrayed as an accused. Prosecution case was that appellant Mahesh had driven the half body truck and hit complainant Balraj who suffered grievous and multiple injuries. Parties were having some dispute regarding trespass over agricultural land. The village Panchayat was seized of the matter and wi th its intervention a compromise had been reached between the complainant and the accused. The complainant Balraj had also filed a suit for damages claiming compensation of Rs. 5 lakh. Statement of the complainant/injured had been recorded in the suit to the effect that the incident had taken place on the day of holi and a truck driven in rash and negligent manner had hit the complainant. Complainant deposed in the suit that he had not seen the driver and others who had run away from the spot taking benefit of darkness. Mr. Andley submits that pursuant to the decision reached in the village panchayat, the complainant had been adequately compensated, who did not pursue the suit after recording of the statement. He let the suit be dismissed in default.

( 6 ) MR. Andley urges that the instant case is over ten years old and the parties have amicably settled their disputes. They were desirous of living amicably in the same village in harmony. He, therefore, makes an impassioned plea for compounding being allowed, since it would subserve the interest of justice.

( 7 ) HAVING noticed the factual matrix, let us examine the legal position in the light of the authorities cited by the Counsel.

( 8 ) RELIANCE was placed on the decision of the Supreme Co