ORDER :

1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant points out from the impugned order that the learned trial court has accepted the compromise to the extent of Sections 341 & 323 of IPC, but has convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act for six months with fine.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that looking into the sentence period as well as the fact that the parties have already entered into a compromise and the main witnesses i.e. PW-1 Parvindra Singh & PW-2 Vishnu Giri were declared hostile, thus, the present petitioner be acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal.

5. This Court is conscious of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in:-

5.1 Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Ors. (2012) 9 SCC 460 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, with regard to the exercise of a High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, observed asunder :-

“The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or proprietary of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. Though the section does not specifically use the expression 'prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice', the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, proprietary or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. On the other hand, Section 482 is based upon the maxim quando lex liquid alicuiconcedit, conceder videtur id quo res ipsa esse non protest, i.e., when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself would be unavoidable. The Section confers very wide power on the Court to do justice and to ensure that the process of the Court is not permitted to be abused.

It may be somewhat necessary to have a comparative examination of the powers exercisable by the Court under these two provisions. There may be some overlapping between these two powers because both are aimed at securing the ends of justice and both have an element of discretion. But, at the same time, inherent power under Section 482 of the Code being an extraordinary and residuary power, it is inapplicable in regard to matters which are specifically provided for under other provisions of the Code. To put it simply, normally the court may not invoke its power under Section 482 of the Code where a party could have availed of the remedy available under Section 397 of the Code itself. The inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code are of a wide magnitude and are not as limited as the power under Section 397. Section 482 can be invoked where the order in question is neither an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) nor a final order in the strict sense. Reference in this regard can be made to Raj Kapoor and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. MANU/SC/0210/1979 : AIR 1980 SC 258 : (1980) 1 SCC 43]}. In this very case, this Court has observed that inherent power under Section 482 may not be exercised if the bar under Sections 397(2) and 397(3) applies, except in extraordinary situations, to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. This itself shows the fine distinction between the powers exercisable by the Court under these two provisions. In this very case, the Court also considered as to whether the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 stand repelled when the revisional power under Section 397 overlap