ORDER D.P.S. Chauhan, J. 1. Appellants Bhoora, Ghanshyam alias Chhintua Mishra and Raju were convicted in S. T No. 56/86 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur under the judgment and order dated 8-1-1987 holding guilty for commission of offence under section 325 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to 4 years R.I. and each was imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Against their conviction the appellants filed appeal under section 374(2), Criminal Procedure Code Cr. A. No. 72/87 wherein the appellants were let of on bail by this Court. 2. In the incident one Dina died. The incident took place on 26-12-1985 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 26-12-1985 at about 6.15 P.M. at police station Khajuraho and on subsequent to the alleging F.I.R. Crime No. 71/85 was registered. The injured Dina succumbed the injuries. The legal representatives of Dina had moved application under section 320, Criminal Procedure Code for compounding the offence. The offence under section 325 is covered by Table No. 2 which provides that the person who can compound the offence. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that section 320(4)(b) provides that when the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is dead, the legal representatives, as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of such person may, with the consent of the Court, compound such offence. In the present case legal representatives are as defined under section 2(11) of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. The application is filed on behalf of the widow of Dina and his two sons Bitola and Bala who are major. Learned counsel submits that in the State of M.P. the succession would accordingly govern by personal law. In the present case the party belongs to Hindu community and succession would govern by Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is not a question involved in the present case as the sons and widow both jointly moved the application. On the record it is apparent that this Court has not issued any notice for enhancement of the sentence nor any application or the petition filed by the State that the sentence awarded is inadequate and ought to enhance. 4. In the present case the appeal is pending and clause 5 of section 320 would be attracted and for compounding the offence leave of the Court is necessary and not the consent. 4. In the present case the appeal is pending and clause 5 of section 320 would be attracted and for compounding the offence leave of the Court is necessary and not the consent. Learned counsel for both the parties heard and they also stated that leave to compound the offence may be granted so that the enmity between the parties may wipe out and the family members of both the sides may live peacefully. 5. In the circumstances of the case, I consider that this is a fit case where leave to compound the offence may be granted. Since leave is granted the offence is compounded and the appeal is accordingly disposed of. The necessary consequence of compounding offence as may be under section 320, Criminal Procedure Code to follow. After dictation of this order, counsel states that the appellant No. 1 Bhoora though granted bail but subsequently was sent to prison on account of his default of appearance before this Court on the date fixed. In consequence of the compounding of offence, Bhoora who is in jail may be released. 6. The accused Bhoora shall be released under this order. The other accused persons who are on bail need not to surrender. Their bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand discharged.