( 1 ) THIS petition by the convict is directed against his conviction for offences under Ss. 448 and 325 I. P. C. , made by the Judicial Magistrate at yadgiri, in C. C. No. 383 of 1970. The petitioner das sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 with regard to the charge under S. 448 IPC. , and in regard to the charge under S. 325 IPC. , he was sentenced to undergo R. I. for one month and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100. The said convictions and sentences were affirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge at Gulbarga, in Crl,a. No. 4 of 1972. Hence this petition. ( 2 ) THIS petition was admitted on 8-12-1972, and therefore, has been pending since. It is to be remarked that the case was instituted on a Police report, on a complaint 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 S. 345 (2) Cr. P. C. , 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 a Counsel of the local Bar and the said counsel Sri G. G. Doddamani, has also identified him in the affidavit in question. ( 3 ) THE offence under S. 448 IPC. , is clearly compoundable without the permission of the Court. The offence under S. 325 IPC. , can be compounded only with the permission of the Court. This Court in Virabhadrappa Karisangappa mannar v. State of Mysore, AIR 1965 Mys. 238= (1964) 2 Mys. L. J. 362, 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-sec. (5a) of S. 345 Cr. P. C. 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 complainant 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 s. 325 IPC. , 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 circumstancse, 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. This Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly. --- *** --- .