The court has the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to accept compromises and order the compounding of offences when the matter is amicably settled between the parties.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of these criminal revision petitions, the petitioners have challenged judgment dated 24.09.2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (4), Shimla, in Criminal Case No. 195/2 of 2005, titled as State v. Vinod Shandil & others, vide which the petitioners were convicted by the learned Trial Court for commission of the offences under Sections 452, 323 & 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), as also judgments dated 06.03.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, in Criminal Appeals No. 60-S/10 of 2008, titled as Maninder Singh alias Manu v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 61-S/10 of 2008, titled as Vinod Shandil v. State of Himachal Pradesh and 62-S/10 of 2008, titled as Anil Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, vide which the appeals filed by the present petitioners against the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court, stood dismissed by the learned Appellate Court.

2. The petitioners have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for commission of offence under Section 452 of IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of one year for commission of offence under Section 325 of IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of three months for commission of offence under Section 323 of IPC and fine also, as stands mentioned in the judgment, passed by the learned Trial Court.

3. During the pendency of the revision petitions, Cr.MPS No. 284, 285 & 286 of 2017 in Criminal Revisions No. 69, 71 & 70 of 2010, respectively have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) by the petitioners, mentioning therein that the matter which led to the registration of FIR and thereafter the conviction of the petitioners, stands amicably settled between the petitioners and the complainant and compromise to this effect also stands entered into between them on 16th March, 2017, as per which, the complainant has agreed to withdraw the FIR, which led to the registration of the case and conviction of the petitioners. Copies of the compromise are appended with the respective petitions, in which it has been mentioned that the incident, which led to the registration of the FIR, has been amicably resolved and both the parties have now realized their respective estates. Prayer, therefore, has been made that the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 452 of IPC are permitted to be compounded.

4. On 23.03.2017, statement of the complainant as also the injured stood recorded by this Court, wherein, the complainant as well as the injured have categorically stated that they have entered into a compromise with the petitioners.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners as also the learned Additional Advocate General.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that taking into consideration the fact that the matter stands amicably settled between the parties and further, that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2008 (5) SCC 794, titled as Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & another, 2014 (4) SCC 14, titled as Bharti v. State of Haryana and another and 2015 (4) RCR (Criminal) 172, titled as Saloni Rupam Bhartiya v. Rupam Prahlad Bhartiya & another, this Court may accept the compromise and the offences may be ordered to be compounded by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

7. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that taking into consideration the fact that the matter stands amicably settled between the complainant, the injured and the petitioners, the State has no objection in case the aforesaid applications are allowed and the offences are ordered to be compounded.

8. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners as also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases, supra, and further the statement so made by the learned Addition