VIJAY CHAND Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been moved under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for permission to compounding of offences. The statements of the complaints and the petitioners have been recorded separately. The petitioners expressed their regret and state that the matter now stands amicably settled between them and the complainants. The complainants have also expressed their desire that in view of the settlement, the case may be compounded.

(2.) Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the offences committed under Section 353 I.P.C. are not compoundable and in these circumstances this application is not maintainable. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes .

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even where the section is non-compoundable, it is a factor to consider the same when permission is to be granted. For this purpose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 S.C.C. 582, where the Court holds that the disputes of a personal nature, permission should ordinarily be granted for compounding such offences. This revision petition is accordingly disposed of having been compounded. The judgments of the courts below are set aside. Necessary consequences in law shall ensue.