Compounding of non-compoundable offences may be allowed if it is for the benefit of the parties and for the betterment of all concerned, especially in cases involving closely related parties.

S.S.Sudhalkar, J.

1. This application has been filed by the appellants for allowing the parties to compound the offence. The appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 326/325/324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and they filed this appeal against the same. After the petitioners moved the application for permission to compromise the matter, an application for placing on record amended memo of parties was also moved by them vide which Karnail Singh son of Mehar Singh, complainant, was impleaded as respondent No. 2. Mr. K.S. Godara, also appeared as an advocate for the said respondent No. 2. Copies of the compromise annexure P.1 and P.2 are on record. Karnail Singh has filed his affidavit annexure P.3.

2. From the facts stated in the judgment passed by the trial court, Karnail Singh was the only person who had received injuries. Moreover, Karnail Singh and Chhota Singh appellant No. 1 are brothers. Other appellants are the sons of Chhota Singh.

3. The question is whether compromise can be accepted when the conviction is for offences which are not compoundable. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the powers of the High Court in accepting the compromise are unfettered. This is also the argument of learned counsel for the complainant. In view of the principles laid down in Criminal Misc. No. 11501-M of 1996 titled Sunil Kumar Yadav v. State of Punjab and another wherein it has been held that if the compromise is for the benefit of the parties and for the betterment of all concerned, it can be accepted, the application deserves to be allowed, because the parties are closely related and it will be a starting point in maintaining peace between the brothers and their families. This court relying on the said judgment, and the judgments in the cases of (1) Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan, 1990(3) Recent C.R. 332; (2) State of Punjab v. Shinder Pal, 1992(3) Recent C.R. 506; (3) Mohinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1994(1) Recent C.R. 84 and (4) Mrs. Shakuntla Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney, U.J. (S.C.) 1979, 478 had allowed the prayer for quashing the FIR.

4. In view of this position Criminal Misc. 15707 of 1996 is allowed and the permission is granted to compromise the offences. Consequently, this appeal stands allowed and the conviction and sentences against the appellants are set aside. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.