IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1700 of 2009 1. CHANDRA KANT SINGH, son of late Lakshmi Narayan Singh 2. Ram Narayan Singh, son of late Sita Ram Singh 3. Shiva Nand Singh, son of late Lakshmi Narayan Singh 4. Shiv Kumar Singh, son of late Subedar Singh, All are residents of vill.-Nathmalpur, P.S.-Barahara, Distt.-Bhojpur------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------Petitioners. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Rabindra Singh, son of late Babu Lal Singh, resident of vill.-Nathmalpur, P.S.-Barahara, District-Bhojpur----------------------------------Opp. Parties. ------------- 2. 4.11.2009 Heard the parties on merit. Complainant’s case is that on the point of using of petitioners’ plot for meeting call of nature, some altercation cropped up between both the families and in that continuation assault was made by means of lathi and garasa causing fractured injury to the complainant. After contest in the trial order of conviction and sentence was passed by the trial court which is confirmed by the Sessions Judge. All the petitioners are convicted for the offence under sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code while petitioner no.3 is convicted for the offence under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Now the submission of the learned counsel for the parties is that parties have compromised so petitioners may be acquitted basing compromise petition which is filed in the case with a separate prayer permitting them to compromise. Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, a lawyer, who is engaged by the complainant victim of the case, is there to corroborate the compromise. It is specifically submitted that parties are Gotia but the only trouble comes in the way is that one of the offences, namely, offence under section 147 of the Code of Criminal - 2 - Procedure is not compoundable though main offences are compoundable either requiring no permission of the Court by the victim or with permission of the Court by the victim. I find no pressure from any corner to compromise the case as parties are Gotia having similar status and dispute was of civil nature basing which the incident took place. So permission is accorded to compromise the offence under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code also. The case is decided in terms of compromise for the offence under sections 323, and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e. conviction and sentence for both the offences. As for offence under section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure though that is not the main offence but that is there for which it is submitted that if the period undergone by the petitioners in discussed and suggested circumstances is taken into consideration it can be observed that period undergone by the petitioners is sufficient towards their sentence. So conviction and sentence for the offence under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed with modification on the point of period of sentence which is reduced to the period already undergone. The petitioner, who is accused in Complaint Case no.463(C) of 1989, Tr. no.60 of 2005/52 of 2006, is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The revision petition is partly allowed. Both the judgment and order dated 6.8.2009 and 10.5.2006 passed by the Fifth Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara, in Criminal Appeal no.44 of 2006 and Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bhojpur, in Complaint Case no.463( C ) - 3 - of 1989, Tr. no. 60 of 2005/ Tr. no.52/2006 respectively are set aside to that extent. Let this order be communicated through fax at the cost of the petitioner. sudip ( Mandhata Singh, J )