The court's decision was based on the principles of accepting settlements and quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, considering the nature and gravity of the crime, its impact on society, and the possibility of conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. Present Criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2011, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 53-Cr.A/10 of 2009, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.09.2009/17.09.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District at Nahan, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 40/2 of 2007, whereby learned trial Court held petitioner-accused guilty of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337and 338 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC) and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as under:-

1. To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days, under Section 279 IPC.

2. To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days, under Section 337 IPC.

3. To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 338 IPC.

2. Petitioner-accused, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction, passed by the learned trial Court, filed an appeal under section 374 of Cr.P.C, 1973 before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P, which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 53-Cr.A/10 of 2009, but fact remains that same was dismissed, as a result of which, judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused approached this Court by way of instant criminal petition, praying therein for acquittal of the petitioner-accused after setting-aside and quashing the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Courts below.

3. It may be noticed that during the pendency of the present case, Miscellaneous application i.e. Cr.M.P. No. 829 of 2017 under Section 482 read with section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came to be filed on behalf of the applicant/petitioner, seeking therein permission to place on record compromise deed, dated 24.8.2015 entered into between the applicant/petitioner and the complaints namely Sh. Anayat Khan and Smt. Anjum.

4. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel, representing the petitioner-accused, while inviting attention of this Court to compromise deed Annexure C-1, contended that the petitioner-accused has entered into the compromise with the complainants namely Sh. Anayat Khan and Smt. Anjum, whereby both the parties with the intervention of elders and some respectable persons of the locality, have resolved to live peacefully and cordially and in this view of the matter, the complainants have consented to withdraw the case got registered by them against the petitioner-accused.

5. By way of aforesaid application, petitioner-accused has placed on record compromise Annexure C-1, whereby both the parties have settled the matter amicably and entered into the compromise with the hope to live peacefully and maintain cordial relation with each other. The parties to the compromise have further stated in their compromise that they do not want to pursue the matter in this Court in terms of the amicable settlement arrived between themselves and as such, FIR No. 112 of 2007, dated 2.4.2007, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, may be quashed and set-aside.

6. This Court with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the aforesaid averments contained in the application as well as in the compromise Annexure C-1, also recorded the statements of complainants namely Sh. Anayat Khan and Smt. Anjum, who are present in Court. Both the complainants stated b