1. Heard.

2. The petitioner Pawan Sharma married to the complainant Meena. There was a quarrel between applicant and Bhawani Sharma with Smt. Meena and her mother Bahutia Bai on 3.10.2004. Due to which, Smt. Meena lodged a report at Police Station Civil Lines, Morena. A criminal case under section 324/34 and 323/34 of IPC was registered. On filing charge-sheet before JMFC, Morena, Criminal Case No.2081/2006 was registered, which was decided by the learned JMFC, Morena on 14.12.2010 by which the petitioner Pawan and Bhawani were convicted under sections 323/34 and 324/34 of IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 6-6 months and imposed fine of Rs.300/- each, and imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- each respectively. The accused persons Bhawani and Pawan preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Morena.

3. Criminal Appeal No. 01/2011 (Bhawani Sharma and others v. State) was decided on 8.3.2011. By the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction under section 324 of IPC against the present applicant Pawan Sharma and acquitted Bhawani Sharma. Pawan Sharma preferred this revision under section 397 r/w section 401 of CrPC against the said judgment.

4. I.A. No. 8282/2014 was filed on 4.10.2014 by Smt. Meena and Smt. Bahutia for compromise along with an affidavit in support of the same. This application for compromise was sent to the Principal Registrar for verification. The same has been verified. On 30.10.2014, report has been submitted by the Principal Registrar stating that he is satisfied that Smt. Meena and Smt. Bahotia have arrived at a compromise voluntarily without any fear or force.

5. Counsel for the petitioner also relied on a decision rendered by this Court in Cr.R. No.603/2009 (Rakesh v. State of M.P.) reported in 2013 Legal Eagle (MP) 348, in which this Court has earlier held that :-

“Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, sections 397 read with 401 – criminal revision – to compound the offence – offence under section 324/34 Indian Penal Code – by the convicted person – after compromising the matter with the complainant – both the parties are present in person in the Court and they were identified by their Advocates – both the parties are family members – in view of compromise, the order of conviction and sentence is set aside and revision petitioners are acquitted – fine amount may be refunded – revision petition allowed.”

Considered.

6. The present petition is not filed under section 482 of CrPC. But it is a revision against the conviction passed by the first appellate Court. There is no provision of compromise under section 324 of IPC as per section 320(1) or 320(2) of CrPC.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has undergone sentenced from 3.10.2004 to 10.11.2004, i.e., about one month and seven days, this Court may pleased to pass a judgment considering the fact that the petitioner is the husband of complainant Smt. Meena and son-in-law of Smt. Bahutia Bai. It is further stated that the petitioner and the victims are family members and the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, therefore, this case of the petitioner may be considered sympathetically.

8. In view of the above circumstances and submissions, this petition is considered in the light of the case of Rakesh (supra) and the conviction against the petitioner is maintained under section 324 of IPC and the period of undergone during the trial from 3.10.2004 to 10.11.2004 and fine deposited by him is treated as sentence to the petitioner.

9. Subject to the variation in the sentence as mentioned above, this petition is disposed of.

.......................