Cr.A No.609/2008 16.07.2009 Present: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, counsel for the respondents. Cr.A No.609/2008 & Cr.MP No.382/2009 Injured Jaimal Singh and all the three respondents are present in person. They say that they, being close relatives, have entered into a compromise and, therefore, the appeal filed by the State may be disposed of, in terms of the compromise. Respondents Jai Singh, Ayodhya Kumari and Ranjeet Singh were convicted by the trial Court, for offences, under Sections 325 and 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They filed appeal in the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge accepted the appeal and acquitted them. State has appealed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge. In the application for permission to compound the offence, it is stated that respondent Jai Singh and injured Jaimal Singh are first cousins, their fathers being real brothers and that other two respondents are the wife and a son of respondent Jai Singh. I have perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties. …2… Cr.A No.609/2008 As per record, injured sustained fracture of nasal bone. Injured says that the fracture has completely united. Parties are close relatives. Incident had taken place ten years back. In view of the abovestated facts and the circumstances of the cases, permission to compound the offence is granted. Injured having compounded the offence, order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is affirmed and State’s appeal is dismissed. Both the appeal and the application stand disposed of. July 16, 2009(sd) (Surjit Singh), J.