IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL COMPOUNDING APPLICATION NO.205 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1439 OF 2001 (Old No.600/1996) Gangoo ……… Appellant Versus The State ……… Respondent Dated: March 17, 2010 Sri Niranjan Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State Sri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal appeal, preferred under section 374(2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.3.1996 passed by the Special Judge, Uttarakashi in Special Trial No.6 of 1994, State Vs. Gangoo, whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant/accused u/s 427 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as I.P.C.) and sentenced him to fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to undergo R.I. for three months. However, the appellant-accused was acquitted by learned Special Judge for the offence punishable u/s 392 IPC and 3(v) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989]. 2 2. A compounding application No.205 of 2010 has been filed along with which the affidavits on behalf of the appellant-Gangoo and complainant-Tota Ram has been filed. In their affidavits, it has been stated that the appellant and complainant both of them are the residents of same village, living peacefully with each and they have maintained familiar relations with each other and now they have no enmity towards each other. It has further been stated that both the parties have left with no grievance against each other. As such, it has been prayed that the offence may be compounded and the appeal may be disposed of in view of the amicable settlement arrived at in between the parties. 3. Appellant-Gangoo and complainant-Tota Ram are also present today in person before the Court, and their presence is being represented by their respective counsel and both of them have also signed in the order sheet. 4. On a perusal of the Table provided in Section 320 Cr.P.C., it transpires that Section 427 IPC is an offence which can be compounded by the person to whom the loss or damage is caused. The complainant- Tota Ram, to whom the loss is caused, has himself stated in his affidavit filed along with the compounding application that the case may be disposed of in view of the amicable settlement arrived at in between the parties. 5. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and perusing the 3 compromise filed by the parties as well as considering the fact that Section 427 IPC is a compoundable offence, the application moved by the appellant and complainant bearing No.205 of 2010 for compounding the offence, is hereby allowed. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 14.3.1996 convicting and sentencing the appellant-accused u/s 427 IPC for fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default R.I. for three months, is hereby set aside. 6. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) March 17, 2010 Rajeev Dang