respectable persons of the village and relatives from both
sides, the matter has been compromised between her and
the appellant and now there is no dispute between them, at
all. It is further stated that respondent No. 2 and the
appellant are neighbours and are living peacefully and no
untoward incident has taken place since 2000. It is further
stated that respondent No. 2 will have no objection if the FIR
lodged by her and all the consequential proceedings arising
out of the said FIR including the judgments rendered by the
courts below against the appellant, are set aside.
Respondent No. 2 has further stated that she is filing this
affidavit without any pressure or coercion. Learned counsel
for the appellant and respondent No. 2 have confirmed that
the parties have entered into a compromise.
4. In the year 2000 when the offence was committed,
Section 451 of the IPC was compoundable with the
permission of the Court by the person in possession of the
house trespassed upon. At that time Section 354 of the IPC
was also compoundable with the permission of the Court by the woman assaulted to whom the criminal force was used.
By the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008
(5 of 2009), Section 354 of the IPC was made non-
compoundable. The question is, therefore, whether in view
of the compromise this Court should permit compounding of
the offence.
5. We notice from the judgment of the Sessions Court that
in the Sessions Court affidavits were filed by respondent No.
2 and her husband stating that the matter was settled. The
Sessions Court did not accept those affidavits and proceeded
to convict the appellant. The High Court confirmed the
conviction.
6. We are mindful of the fact that Section 354 of the IPC
is, as of today, non-compoundable. But, as noticed by us, it
was compoundable when the instant offence was committed
with the permission of the court. Even then, we would have
hesitated to permit compounding of the offence. But, facts
of this case are very peculiar. Respondent No.2 and her
husband have, even today, maintained their stand taken in JUDGMENT
the trial court that they have entered into a compromise
with the appellant. As we have already noted, respondent
No.2 has filed an affidavit to that effect in this Court.
Compromise is, therefore, not an afterthought. Pertinently,
the incident in question took-place way back in the year
2000. About 13 long years have gone-by. In her affidavit
respondent No. 2 has stated that the appellant is her
neighbour and they are staying peacefully since 2000 till
date. We are of the opinion that since the appellant and
respondent No. 2 are neighbours it would be in the interest
of justice to permit the parties to compound the offences. If
the conviction is confirmed, the relations may get strained
and the peace, which is now prevailing between the two
families, may be disturbed. In the peculiar facts of this case,
therefore, in order to accord quietus to the disputes between
the appellant and respondent No. 2 and in the larger interest
of peace, we permit the appellant and respondent No. 2 to
compound the offences. Accordingly, offences under
Sections 451 and 354 of the IPC are permitted to be
compounded. The impugned judgment is set aside. The JUDGMENT
appellant is acquitted. The appellant-Bharti is in jail. The
appellant-Bharti should be released forthwith, unless he is
required in any other case.
7. The appeal is disposed of in the afore-stated terms.