JUDGMENT

Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist u/s 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.10.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in Criminal Case No.5090 of 2010, ‘State vs. Parvej', whereby the court below convicted the revisionist u/s 406 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 1 year's imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/-, u/s 419 IPC he was convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000, u/s 420 IPC he was convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000, u/s 467 IPC he was convicted and sentenced to undergo 5 years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000, u/s 468 IPC he was convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000, u/s 471 IPC he was convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000 and u/s 506 IPC he was convicted and sentenced to undergo 1 year's imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000 as well as the order dated 11.09.2012 passed by the 3rd Addl. Session Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No.173 of 2011, ‘Parvej vs. Addl. Session Judge, Haridwar, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the lower Court order. Hence this revision has been filed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. State, whereby the Appellate Court has affirmed the sentence awarded to the revisionist, but set aside the sentence under Sections 406 and 419 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the informant-Moti Lal submitted an information with police station Jwalapur. Accordingly, impugned FIR No.161 of 2010 was registered U/s 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC. After the investigation, chargesheet was submitted; accordingly, cognizance was taken after giving necessary copies to the revisionist as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C., statement of revisionist was recorded, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. On this prosecution got examined PW1 Moti Lal (informant), PW2 D.S. Bisht, PW3 Smt. Bhrama Rani, PW4 Brejlal Dhiman and PW5 SI Ganesh Malela.

4. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the revisionist under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in reply to which he alleged the same to the false but no evidence indefense was adduced.

5. After hearing both the parties, learned trial Court found that prosecution has successfully proved the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC against the revisionist and, accordingly, he was found guilty. On hearing the sentence he was sentenced for the offences as mentioned in para no.1 of this judgment. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.10.2011 in criminal case No. 5090 of 2010 State vs. Parvej, the revisionist preferred criminal appeal no.173 of 2011, ‘Parvej vs. State whereby the leaned the 3rd Addl. Session Judge, Haridwar, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the lower Court order. Hence this revision has been filed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. During the course of hearing both the parties were present before the Court and have filed a Compounding Application (IA No.4069 of 2021) jointly to show that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. It is also stated that the parties have entered into a compromise. The compounding application is supported by an affidavit which is duly verified by the parties. The informant was present before the Court on 15.09.2021; he made a statement that he has taken all the money from the revisionist; he does not want to pursue the matter. Learned counsel for the private respondent admitted this fact.

8. The State has no objection for the same and fairly submitted that it is purely a private dispute between the parties.

9. It is contended by learned counsel for the writ revisionist that the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 506 IPC are compoundable whereas offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC are non-c