IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.158 of 2003. Date of Decision: 9.7.2010. _______________________________________________ Prem Dass and others. ….Petitioners. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioners :Mr. Bhupinder Ahuja, Advocate. For the Complainant. :Mr. Sunil Awasthi, Advocate. For respondent. :Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). Cr.M.P. 523 of 2010. This application has been moved jointly by the petitioners and complainant under Sections 320 (6) read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with prayer that the offences be compounded. Petitioner-Prem Dass and complainant-Rakesh Kumar are present in Court. Their statements have been recorded separately. The petitioner and the complainant jointly submit that they are related to each other by blood are now on very good terms. They have Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?.yes. 2 settled the disputes amicably and jointly pray that permission for compounding the offences be granted by this Court. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection in case the offence is compounded. In the fact and circumstances of the case, Ext.C-1 which is the application filed under Section 320 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is taken on the record of the case. The offences for which the petitioners were convicted under Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are compoundable. Permission is granted to compound the offences. This application is accordingly allowed. Cr. Revision No. 158 of 2003. This revision petition was taken up on the request made by the parties that both of them have moved an application for compounding the offences and the petition be disposed of. Learned Addl. Advocate General has no objection in case further proceedings are taken up in this case today. Accordingly, the case was taken up. Application under Section 320 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure jointly filed by the parties is taken on the record of the case as Ext.C-1. Statements of the parties have been recorded. It is stated that they have compromised their disputes with the complainant. Looking to the record, I also find that some proceedings in the Gram Panchayat had also been filed in this Court along with Cr.M.P.No. 325 of 2010. That application was withdrawn with liberty reserved to the petitioners to 3 move fresh application in accordance with law. Parties have accepted this compromise also which is placed on the record as Ext.C-2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this revision petition is disposed of. The judgment of both the courts below imposing the sentence and fine on the petitioners is set aside. Permission is granted for compounding of the offences. The necessary legal consequences shall follow. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. July 9, 2010(R) .