MURARI LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Perused the revision petition and the orders dated 8th April, 1988 and 15th June. 1983 and also the record of the case. Kalyan Prasad, is a complainant in this case and he has entered into a compromise with all the accused petitioner. Sec. 147 is not compoundable as such benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, has been extended by the Court below. Though it has come on record that Radheyshyam has also compromised but the compromise petition has not been produced by him. I have gone through the record of the case and it is a dispute relating to a construction which the accused party alleged to have claimed to be there in the court. On account of obstruction to the construction a quarrel took place and stones were thrown. According to the prosecution lathi blow was also given. There was no common object of giving a beating earlier. The common object was to prevent the complainant from constructing on the part which was claimed by the accused petitioner in one way or the other. Taking note of the compromise, the evidence on record and looking to civil nature dispute and other allied matters, this revision petition is accepted.

(2.) In the result, the petitioners are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Revision allowed.