:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 417 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 429 OF 2008 Shivajirao Balasaheb Thorat ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr. ..Respondents Mr. Rahul Kate for applicant. Ms. A.A. Mane, APP for State. Mr. R.D. Suryawanshi for respondent no.2. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. Date : November 17, 2008. Date : November 17, 2008. Date : November 17, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant - original accused, learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 - injured witness and the learned APP for the State. 2. By the judgment and order dated 7/7/2004 passed by the learned IInd Jt. J.M.F.C., Satara in Summary Criminal Case No. 1645 of 2003, the applicant has been convicted under Sections 279 and 337 of the :2: IPC and under Section 134(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. By the said judgment and order, the applicant has been sentenced, under Section 279 of IPC, to suffer SI for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo SI for 15 days, under Section 337 of IPC SI for 15 days and to pay fine of Rs.200/- in default to undergo SI for 10 days and SI for 15 days and to pay fine of Rs.300/- in default to undergo SI for 10 days under Section 134(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Appeal preferred by the applicant came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, the applicant preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 429 of 2008 against the said order. 3. By this application the applicant is seeking permission to compound the offences. The learned Advocate for the applicant states that the matter has been amicably settled and in view of settlement Rs.20,000/- is being paid to the respondent no.2 today itself. The learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 states that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and in view of the amicable settlement, he has no objection for compounding of the :3: offence and/or reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicant. The respondent no.2 has also filed an affidavit-in-reply wherein the above facts are stated. 4. It is seen that Section 279 of IPC is not compoundable. Hence the said offence cannot be compounded. However, looking to the amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to pass the following order:- . In view of the amicable settlement, conviction and sentence of fine of the applicant under all three sections is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicant under all three sections is set aside. 5. Application and revision disposed of accordingly. (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.) (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.) (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.)