IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1429 of 2011 Sogarath Mahto, son of Late Sukan Mahto, resident of village- Bahurar, P.S.-Nanpur, District- Sitamarhi. ………Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Bindeshwar Mahto, son of Saryug Mahto, resident of village-Bahurar, P.S.-Nanpur, District-Sitamarhi. ………..Opposite Parties. ----------- 2. 25.11.2011 The petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 28.09.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.I, Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal No.72/2008/18/2011 by which he has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence dated 2.12.2008 passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Pupri (Sitamarhi) in G.R. No.10/1991, Trial No.500/2008 by which the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 324 of the I.P.C. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that due to intervention of the well-wisher of the informant and opposite party no.2, the case has been compromised between both the parties and the injured does not want to proceed with this case further as good relationship has been restored between the parties. In 2 token of the compromise, I.A. No.2367/2011 at flag ‘A’ has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that the offence punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C. is compoundable with permission of the Court. Since, the offence is compoundable, permission is granted to compound the offence. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been remained in custody. Let the petitioner be released from the custody, if not wanted in any other case. This revision application stands disposed of. Let this order be communicated to the trial court through fax at the cost of the petitioner. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)