ORDER

In this criminal revision filed under section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. the order of conviction and sentence passed on 27.03.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.451/15 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Nagod, district Satna, has been assailed. By this judgment, the learned Appellate Court had confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed on 13.10.2015 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagod, district Satna, in Criminal Case No.572/2011.

2. On 27.7.2023 the parties filed I.A. No.18638/2023 seeking permission to compound the offence and dispose of the matter on the basis of compromise.

3. This Court on 22.05.2024 had directed that the parties shall appear before the Registrar (J-II) for verification of compromise. The verification report was received from that end on 22.05.2024 itself, in which it has been certified that the parties have arrived at a compromise without any threat, inducement or coercion and the compromise is voluntarily.

4. On the basis of that report, this Court is satisfied that the parties have arrived at a compromise on their free-will and volition. The applicants were convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under sections 452 of IPC and section 323/34 (two counts) of IPC by the impugned judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.451/2015. The offences of section 323 of IPC is included in the tables mentioned under section 320 of Cr.P.C. in which the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC is compoundable without the permission of the Court.

5. The question that arises for decision is whether permission of compromise can be granted for offences of Sections 452 of IPC, which is non-

compoundable in nature. On this aspect, the legal position is settled by the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court that inherent powers of Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised concurrently with the appellate and revisional jurisdiction. This underlines that while hearing the appeal against conviction under an offence which is of non-compoundable nature, the High Court may not be competent to permit compounding of the offence, but High Court may quash the proceedings in such cases. For this, decision in Popular Muthiah Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police reported in 2006 (7) SC 296 and Shiji @ Pappu & others Vs. Radhika & anr. reported in (2011) 100 SCC 705 (Criminal Appeal No.2094/2011 ) can be referred to. It has also been held in case of Shiji ( supra ) that the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. have to be exercised with utmost care and caution and only sparingly for securing the ends of justice.

6. The matter in hand involves a personal dispute and does not have the dimensions to affect the public interest. Parties have amicably settled the matter between them. It can be apprehended that if the dispute is allowed to linger on between them, it would disturb their harmonious relationship and may become the cause of further rift. Looking to the nature of dispute, it is deemed appropriate to invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. here. Accordingly, the conviction under Sections 452 of IPC is hereby quashed.

7. As the matter has been settled through compromise, the impugned judgment passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Nagod, district Satna, in Criminal Appeal No.451/2015 regarding conviction and sentence of applicants under section 452 & 323/34 (2 counts) of IPC is set aside. The applicants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them.

8. The Applicants are in custody, they be immediately released.

9. Let a copy of this order alongwith the record be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance. (ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE DevS