Cr. Revision No. 4 of 2009 6.10.2010 Present: Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy. Advocate General, for the respondent. Petitioner and both the injured are also present in person. Mr. Sunil Awasthi, Advocate, for the injured. Cr.MP No. 759 of 2010 & Cr. Revision 4 of 2009 This application Cr.MP No. 759 of 2010 has been moved on behalf of the petitioner praying that the offences for which he has been charged be compounded. This application is supported by the affidavits of the petitioner, his wife Simmi Mehra who was one of the injured, and Suman Kumar, who was also another injured. It is undisputed before me that in the accident the wife of petitioner and one Suman Kumar sustained injuries. The petitioner was also injured. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed. It is taken on record as Ext.C-1. Permission to compound the offences in terms of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is granted. The judgment of the Courts below is set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner herein shall pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to Mr. Suman Kumar, the injured, which amount has infact been paid to him in Court today. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that offence under Section 279 IPC is not compoundable. This objection cannot be sustained. In Putta Swamy vs. State of Karnataka, 2009 (1) SCC 711 the Supreme Court directs that even in case under Section 279 IPC, permission to compound the offence can be granted. To similar effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Jetha Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006(9) SCC 255. Hence this petition stands disposed of. Necessary consequences under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for compounding the offences shall follow. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge October 06, 2010(ms)