Order.- This petition by the convict is directed against his conviction for offences under sections 448 and 325, Indian Penal Code, made by the Judicial Magistrate at Yadagiri, in C.C.No. 383 of 1970. The petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 with regard to the charge under section 448, Indian Penal Code, and in regard to the charge under section 325, Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100. The said convictions and sentences were affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Gulbarga, in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1972. Hence this petition. 2. This petition was admitted on 8th December, 1972, and therefore, has been pending since. It is to be remarked that the case was instituted on a Police Report, on a compliant by one Narasinga Rao, a Post Master of Arakeri Village in Gulbarga District. The accused is also a resident of Arakeri Village and a teacher by profession. In the course of the present petition, on behalf of Narasinga Rao, an application under section 345 (2), Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed requesting that the accused might be acquitted, as the subject-matter of the offences has been compounded between them. This application is supported by two affidavits, one by the accused and the other by Narasinga Rao, who was the victim of the transaction complained of. The affidavit of Narasinga Rao has been produced before me through Counsel of a the local Bar and the said Counsel, Sri G.G. Doddamani, has also identified him in the affidavit in question. 3. The offence under section 448, Indian Penal Code, is clearly compoundable without the permission of the Court. The offence under section 325, Indian Penal Code, can be compounded only with the permission of the Court. This Court in Virabhadrappa Karisangappa Mannar and others v. The State of Mysore and another1, has laid down that when a Court is called upon to grant permission, the discretion to grant or refuse such permission must be exercised judicially on the basis of the facts and circumstances of a case. In other words, it is impliedly laid down that the Courts ought to be slow in granting such permission especially when offences of a serious nature are involved. In other words, it is impliedly laid down that the Courts ought to be slow in granting such permission especially when offences of a serious nature are involved. The position is more so when this Court is called upon to exercise that discretion under sub-section (5-A) of section 345, Criminal Procedure Code. I shall, therefore, proceed to examine the circumstances bearing on the question of grant or refusal of such permission. 4. It is seen from the record that the complianant before the Police, Narasinga Rao, was admittedly indebted to the accused. It is in the course of making a demand for the repayment of the debt that the offences complained of were said to have been committed. The offence with regard to section 325, Indian Penal Code, relates to a fracture of one of the bones of the fore-arm. It is clear that the fracture occurred on account of the dragging of Narasinga Rao, by the accused, and not by use of any weapon, such as a lathi or any other instrument. In these circumstances,it is reasonable to infer that the occurrence of the fracture is more accidental, than of design. It is also seen that both the parties are residents of one and the same place, namely Arakere and both are employed as Government servants in one capacity or the other. It is also clear from the affidavits produced before me that this compromise has not been the result of any improper bargain between the parties. In these circumstances, I think it proper to accord permission to the parties to the compromise in question. I, therefore, accord permission for the compromise reported herein. 5. In the result, the petitioner is entitled to an acquittal. It is ordered accordingly. 6. This Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly. S.V.S. ----- Petition allowed; Permission granted.