The judgment emphasizes the possibility of compounding an offence under Section 320 of CrPC and the consideration of circumstances in granting permission for compounding.

JUDGMENT :

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of CrPC has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 29/01/2021 passed by Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge Datia in Criminal Appeal No. 43/2017, arising out of the judgment and sentence dated 19/07/2017 passed by JMFC, Datia in Criminal Case No. 151/2016 by which the applicants have been convicted under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of six months with a fine of Rs. 500/- with default imprisonment.

2. This Court, by order dated 08/02/2021, had observed that there is a very little scope of interference in the merits of the findings of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Accordingly, the Counsel for the applicants had prayed for some time to argue on the question as to whether the benefit of probation under Section 360 of CrPC or under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is admissible to the applicants who happen to be aged about 60 years and 26 years respectively or not?

3. Thereafter, on 16/02/2021, the State Counsel was directed to seek instructions as to whether the applicants have any criminal antecedents or previous conviction or not?

4. Thereafter, the applicants and the complainant filed an application under Section 320 of CrPC for compounding the offence with the permission of this Court, which was registered as IA No. 6246 of 2021 and this Court, by order dated 24/02/2021, had directed the complainant and victim to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for recording of their statements to enable this Court to assess the genuineness or otherwise of their intention to compound the offence in question.

5. Accordingly, the complainant and victim, namely, Devendra Bhargava and Sahdev Bhargava appeared before the Principal Registrar of this Court and expressed that they are now not interested in further prosecution of the applicants and accordingly, the Principal Registrar of this Court has given the following report:-

''After verifying from Complainant/Injured Devendra and Sahdev Bhargava, that they submits that they have compromised with Accused/Petitioners voluntarily, without any threat, inducement and coercion.

According to Sec. 320 of CRPC the Offences U/s. 325, 34 of I.P.C. is compoundable.''

6. Since the offence under Section 325 of IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court, therefore, before granting permission, this Court thinks it apposite to consider the nature of allegations as well as the injuries caused to the victim Sahdev Bhargava.

7. According to the prosecution case, the applicants were trying to lay down the electricity wire in an illegal manner. When the victim Sahdev Bhargava objected to it and insisted that the applicants must deposit the electricity bill and only thereafter, they must utilize the electricity connection, then, the applicants started abusing the victim Sahdev Bhargava and assaulted him by lathis as a result of which, he sustained various injuries on different parts of his body. Accordingly, 108 Ambulance was called and the injured was taken to District Hospital, Datia and FIR (Ex. P1) was lodged by complainant Devendra Bhargava in Police Station Jigna, District Datia.

8. The victim Sahdev Bhargava was medically examined and one contusion of 3 x 3 cm on the left hand, 1/2 of the radius region with swelling and redness and pain and tenderness on the left side of back without swelling and reddish was seen. X-ray of left hand was advised and accordingly, fracture of lower half of left ulna bone of left forearm was seen. X-ray report is Ex. P8. MLC report of Sahdev Bhargava is Ex. P7 (in the MLC report, part of the body on which injuries were caused, is described as ''forehand'' in place of ''forearm'').

9. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence of the witnesses as well as defence taken by the applicants, convicted the applicants for offence under Section