Cr.Revision No.191 of 2011. 26.09.2011.Present: Mr. K.S.Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl.A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. for respondent No.2. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 14.07.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, in Criminal Appeal No. 25/2011, affirming judgment dated 01.09.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Manali, in Criminal Case No. 215-I/09. The respondent No. 1 was tried for offence punishable under Section 509IPC. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.1 has admitted his guilt voluntarily by executing compromise Ex. PW4/A. It has been stated that compromise Ex. PW4/A fully establishes the case of the prosecution against the respondent No. 1 and this document has not been properly appreciated by the two Courts below. 2. It has been observed by learned Judicial Magistrate that PW-7 Champa Devi has stated that the accused used to make obscene and vulgar calls to her and also used abusive language. The accused admitted his guilt before her husband and compromise was got effected between the parties at Police Post Prini. 3. The two Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that compromise Ex.PW4/A was not executed by the respondent No.1 voluntarily. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that it stands proved that compromise deed Ex.PW4/A was not voluntarily in nature and the accused had signed the document in Police Post Prini on the directions of the police. - 2 - 4. The scope in criminal revision is very narrow. The facts cannot be reappreciated. The two Courts below have recorded a finding of fact, more particularly, on compromise Ex.PW4/A. There is no merit in the revision which is dismissed. September 26, 2011. (Kuldip Singh), (Krt) Judge.