JUDGMENT 1. 1. Sita Ram, appellant No. 2, has been convicted under Sections 326, 324 and 148, IPC. Hari Narain, appellant No. 1, has ben convicted under Section 326/149, IPC and Section 148 IPC. The rest of the appellants have been convicted under Sections 148, 326/149 and 323, IPC and have been sentenced to various terms of rigorous, imprisonment, by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur by his judgment dated June 26, 1981 and they have appeared before this Court. 2. It has been admitted by the counsel for the complainant, Ram Niwas, as well as by the counsel for the appellants that the appellants and the four injured are real cousins. The dispute occurred on account of some quarrel with respect to agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 1979, measuring 3 bighas 7 biswas. situated in Phagi District, Jaipur. The back-ground of the incident was that a dispute regarding the possession over this agricultural land between the real cousins was going on. Badri Narain PW19 who was recorded khatedar of the agricultural land had made a gift of the land in favour of his cousins Jagdish and Ram Gopal. The injured are sons of Jagdish while Ganga Sahai and Madan Lal are sons of Ram Gopal. The donor gave one half land towards the western side to Jagdish and the remaining land towards the eastern side to Ram Gopal. 3. The complainant party and the appellants have filed a composition deed before this Court on May 16, 1989. It was mentioned in it that by virtue of one more registered document, some part of the land was given to Ram Chandra. The parties concerned have settled the land dispute and have divided the land between them. They state that they are now having good family relations and it would be just and proper and in the interest of justice to allow them to compound the for which the appellants have been found guilty, and sentenced. 4. In Mahesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1988 SC 2111 ) . the accused were convicted by the High Court for the offence under Section 307. IPC. The was not compoundable under law. The parties, however. wanted to treat the case as a special case in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. One of the accused was a lawyer practising in the lower Courts. the accused were convicted by the High Court for the offence under Section 307. IPC. The was not compoundable under law. The parties, however. wanted to treat the case as a special case in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. One of the accused was a lawyer practising in the lower Courts. There was a counter case arising out of the same transaction, which had been compromised. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court after giving anxious consideration to the case and also the plea put forth for seeking permission to compound the and further after examining the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the was committed directed the trial Court to compound the after giving an opportunity to the parties and after being satisfied about the compromise having been arrived at. 5. It is true that the under Section 326, IPC is not compoundable even with the permission of the Court. but nothing in the Code prevents this Court under Section 482. Cr. P. C. to allow composition to secure the ends of justice in the special circumstances of a particular case. The special circumstances in the case are that the appellants and the injured are real cousins. There was some dispute between them relating to the aforesaid agricultural land which had been gifted by the khatedar Badri Narain (PW/9). A counter FIR had also been lodged by Sita Ram against the complainant party. Injuries had also been sustained as Madan Lal and Sita Ram appellants. The land dispute has been settled between the parties and, now they are in good relations. In view of all these facts, it appears just and proper to allow composition of the between the complainant and appellants. 6. It is, therefore directed that the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur will accord permission to the injured complainants and the appellants to compound the s after giving an opportunity to the parties and after being satisfied that the compromise has been agreed upon. The parties are directed to present themselves before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur on 27th May, 1989, for the above purpose. The file of the trial Court and the application for compounding the offence may be transmitted to the trial Court immediately. 7. The parties are directed to present themselves before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur on 27th May, 1989, for the above purpose. The file of the trial Court and the application for compounding the offence may be transmitted to the trial Court immediately. 7. In case the trial Court is satisfied with regard to the compounding of the offence and verifying the compromise the appellants shall stand acquitted for the for which they have been convicted by him. In case, they fail to satisfy the Sessions Judge as to composition, the Sessions Judge shall remit the case back to this Court. *******