* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.WRIT PETITION NO. 599 OF 2009 1] Brijendra Singh Rampalsingh Rathod 2] Shivramshingh Vishramsingh Badhoria ...Petitioners/Original Accused. V/s. The State of Maharashtra [at the instance of Dadar Railway Police Station vide their C.R.No.128/2002] ..Respondents. ========= Mr.P.R.Dave & Mr.Sachin Dalvi, adv.for petitioners. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP for State. Mrs.Pranjali Joshi, adv.for respondent no.2-original complainant. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 1ST APRIL, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard counsels for both sides. 2. This petition is filed to challenge the order dated 21st June, 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 35th Court, C.S.T., Mumbai in C.C.No.378/P/2002 convicting the petitioners under Section 325 read with 34 IPC. The petitioners have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period * 2 * of one year each and pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each. Out of the total fine amount of Rs.6,000/- it is directed that compensation of Rs.5,000/- be given to respondent no.2, the original complainant. The order of the trial court was challenged by the petitioners by preferring Criminal Revision Application No.691 of 2008 to the court of Sessions at Bombay. The said revision application is rejected by the order dated 29th February, 2009. After dismissal of the revision application, both the petitioners have been taken into custody to undergo the sentence awarded to them. 3. Mr.Dave, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that thereafter there has been settlement between the petitioners and respondent no.2 under which respondent no.2 does not any longer desire that the petitioners be behind the bars. Respondent no.2 has accordingly filed an affidavit to that effect. He has stated in the affidavit, that he wants to make a compromise with the petitioners and gives his no-objection for compounding of the offence. He has given his no-objection for the petitioners being released/acquitted/discharged by this court. Respondent no.2 however has not stated anything about the compensation receivable by him under the order of the trial court. Since the incident of assault has been established in which respondent no.2 suffered grievous injuries of fracture in both hands, in my opinion, the * 3 * only order that can be passed in the present petition is that of confirming the order of conviction by the trial court and reducing the substantive sentence to the imprisonment already undergone. Hence the order. O R D E R 4. The petition is partly allowed. 5. The order of conviction of the petitioners under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC in C.C.No.378/P/2002 is confirmed. The substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year to each is reduced to the sentence already undergone by the petitioners. The sentence as regards the fine amount and the order of granting compensation to respondent no.2 out of the fine amount is confirmed. [JUDGE]