The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discussion on the compounding of non-compoundable offences, the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings, and the circumstances under which proceedings may be quashed.

The appellants herein stand convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ariyalur in S.C.No.6 of 2007, for the offences under Sections 427 IPC and 3(i) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 59 of 1992, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 427 IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each in default to under go simple imprisonment for six months under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred this criminal appeal.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

PW-1 Ramalingam is residing in Chennivanam Village, Ariyalur Taluk. One Ramasamy is his neighbour. The accused 1 and 2 are brothers-in-law of the said Ramasamy. There was a civil dispute pending between PW-1 and his neighbour Ramasamy. Subsequently Ramasamy died due to his illness on 110. 2004 at about 08.00pm. The accused entered into the house of P.W.1 and demolished the backside of the compound wall. The accused also abused PW-1 with filthy language. PW-1 preferred a complaint Ex.P-

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Sendurai Police Station, received complaint and registered the case in Cr.No. 228/04 under Sections 294(b), 427, 506(ii) and prepared the First Information Report Ex.P-5.

3. P.W.6, Sub Inspector of Police took up the investigation and proceeded to the spot and prepared the rough sketch Ex.P.6 and examined the witnesses. The accused were arrested on the same day on 110. 2004 at 02.20 p.m., near Vellore Bus stand. Subsequently P.W.7 took up further investigation and completed the investigation and filed the final report.

4. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses and marked 7 exhbits. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied their complicity. On the defence side, one witness was examined and two documents were marked.

5. The learned judge after considering the evidences and documents convicted the accused as stated above.

6. Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the whole occurrence was only due to the civil dispute and at the relevant time, there was a civil suit between Ramasamy, who is the brother-in-law of the accused and P.W.1. The occurrence had taken place on the death of the said Ramasamy. The whole occurrence was only civil dispute.

7. Now the matter has been compromised between the parties. It was only a trivial incident which has been boosted up. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that even the defacto complainant is present before this Court and has also filed an affidavit stating that the matter has been compromised in the presence of the village elders and PW-1 seeks permission of this Court to compound evidence.

8. Learned counsel relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and others Vs State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and in Nikhil Merchant Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2008 SCC 677).

9. Placing reliance on the above decisions, the learned counsel sought permission of this Court for compounding the offences and prayed for setting aside the acquittal of the accused.

10. Mr.J.C.Durairaj, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submits that PW-1 has given evidence before this Court and his evidence was corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. The Trial Court also afster considerings the evidence convicted the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that though the matter has been compromised among the defacto complainant and the accused, the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) submits that the offences convicted are non-compoundable offences and the case has alre