The court can quash criminal proceedings and accept compromise petitions in cases of entirely personal offences, where the compromise would bring about peace and secure ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Pursuant to the order dated 01.04.2022 notice was issued to the petitioners in Cr. Revision No.312 of 2005, Cr. Revision No.223 of 2005 & petitioner no.1 & 3 in Cr. Revision No.311 of 2005. A service report has been received indicating therein that petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 in Cr. Revision No.312 of 2005 have died and as per supplementary affidavit dated 10.08.2017 petitioner no.2 in Cr. Revision no. 311 of 2005 has died on 08.09.2009. The notices have been served upon rest of the petitioners in all cases.

3. In view of the aforesaid fact, the revision application is dismissed as abated against petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 in Cr. Revision No.312 of 2005 & Petitioner No.2 in Cr. Revision No.311 of 2005.

4. Since the revision applications i.e. Cr. Rev. No. 312 of 2005 and Cr. Rev. No. 223 of 2005 arise out of common judgment passed by the appellate court and are also interconnected with the same P.S. case, as such both are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

5. Further, the issue involved in the aforesaid two revision applications are also similar to Criminal Revision No. 311 of 2005, and such, same is also heard along with other two cases.

Cr. Revision Nos. 312 of 2005 & 223 of 2005

6. Both these revision applications have been preferred against the judgment dated 27.01.2005 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Jamtara, in Cr. Appeal No. 299 of 1986/131 of 2004; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.1986 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamtara in S.C. No. 187 of 1977 as corrected by the learned court by order dated 14.03.2005; whereby the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Sections 148, 323, 324, 326 and 307 IPC has been affirmed. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & Gul Muhammad were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years each under Section 307 IPC, 3 years each R.I. under section 326 IPC, petitioner nos. 4, 5 & Gul Muhammad for 2 years each under Section 324 IPC, petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & Gul Muhammad for one year R.I. each under section 148 IPC, petitioner nos. 1 and 2 for R.I. for six months each under section 323 IPC, petitioner no.3 for 3 years under Section 307 IPC, 2 years under Section 326 IPC, 1 year under Section 324 IPC, 6 month under Section 148 IPC and 3 months under Section 323 IPC read with Section 109 IPC.

7. The prosecution case in brief is that on 29.09.1976 at about 8 p.m. all the accused persons armed with lathi, cycle chain, Bhala, Dager and tangi assaulted Maniruddin Mian who sustained injuries. They assaulted Maniruddin Mian in village persola due to previous enmity. While informant Babulal Mian along with others took the injured Maniruddin Mian on a cot to pearsola, Mari-bhatti where at about 10 a.m. a Punjabi Bus reached from Mihijam side and the injured Maniruddin Mian was being carried to Jamtara Hospital by the said bus and when that bus reached near Gorainala more, all the accused persons named above alongwith other 8-10 persons stopped the bus. Accused Kurban Mian and Tamijuddin Mian ordered to kill Maniruddin Mian and others. On the order, accused Hamiruddin Mian armed with lathi, Rahman Mian armed with Bhala, Dindar Mian armed with cycle chain, Asriddin Mian armed with dagar, Basir Mian armed with tangi and Daud Mian armed with lathi and other 8 to 10 persons armed with lathi, Bhala etc; climbed upon the bus roof where Maniruddin Mian was lying in injured condition and began to assault and as a result of which Karim Ansari, Chotu Mian, Mokin Mian and Mahabir Ansari sustained injury. Karim Ansari became unconscious on being injured. Hamridduin Mian also assaulted him with cycle chain and he received injuries on right leg, left thigh, buttock and chest. The injured were admitted in Jamtara Hospital where Maniruddin Mian, and Karim Mian were admitted in unconscious state.

8. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this court towards a