Judgment :- The petitioners in Cri. O.P. No. 567 of 1999 have filed this petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C. seeking to set aside the conviction under S. 500, I.P.C. and the sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week, imposed upon them in C.C. No. 841 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Thanjavur which were confirmed in Cri. R.P. No. 14 of 1998 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur and acquit them. The first respondent in the above petition, on whose complaint the conviction and the sentence were imposed upon the petitioners, has filed a revision in Cri. R.C. No. 1134 of 1998 praying for enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the petitioners. Since both these matters would arise out of a single case, a common order is being passed. A private complaint was filed by Mohammed Farook against the petitioners in Cri. O.P. No. 567 of 1999 for the offence under S. 500, I.P.C. According to the complainant, the petitioners, who were holding various positions in the mosque, refused to receive the money from the complainant for registering the marriage of his son in the marriage register and abused the complainant and told him that they would not send the Imam for conducting the marriage of his son and thereby, the petitioners committed the offence under Section 500, I.P.C. It is the case of the defence that since cinema music programme was arranged for the marriage in violation of the religious ethics, they had asked the complainant to cancel the said programme and therefore, a false complaint was lodged by the complainant against the petitioners. In the trial Court, P. Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs. P-1 to P-6 were marked. On behalf of the defence, Exs. D-1 to D-4 were marked. The trial Court, after having considered the materials placed before the Court by both the parties, found that the petitioners/accused guilty for the offence under S. 500, I.P.C. and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The main allegation in the complaint was made against the leader of the mosque, who was arrayed as A1. Since A1 died during the course of trial, the case against him abated. 25/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The main allegation in the complaint was made against the leader of the mosque, who was arrayed as A1. Since A1 died during the course of trial, the case against him abated. Therefore, the petitioners (A2 to A9) filed a revision before the Sessions Court, which, in turn, confirmed the finding of the trial Court. Hence, this petition. As noted above, having not satisfied with the quantum of the punishment, the complainant has preferred the revision before this Court under Section 401, Cr. P.C. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that even assuming that the entire evidence is true, the totality of the evidence which would show that the first accused, who is no more, abused the complainant in unpalatable manner and did not allow to register the marriage of the complainant's son in the marriage register and send the Imam to the marriage 'panthal' for conducting the marriage, would not amount to defamation as contemplated under Section 500, I.P.C. It is noticed that the witnesses examined were only the complainant and the persons accompanied him to the house of A1, who stated to have abused the complainant. There is no dispute in the fact that the marriage of the complainant's son was subsequently held with the help of other Imams and got it registered in some new marriage register. As per the definition under S. 499, I.P.C., if a person makes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm the reputation of such person, it would amount to defamation. Explanation 4 to the said Section would provide that no imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless the imputation, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person or lowers the credit of that person. In this case, witnesses had not been examined to show that the credit of the complainant was lowered in the estimation of others. On the basis of this aspect, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the offence under Section 500, I.P.C. is not made out. Though I find force in the said contention, I am not inclined to decide the matter on that basis. On the basis of this aspect, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the offence under Section 500, I.P.C. is not made out. Though I find force in the said contention, I am not inclined to decide the matter on that basis. In view of the fact that during the pendency of the matter before this Court, both the parties have come to terms of compromise. To this effect, they also filed a memo of compromise before this Court on 30-4-2001. In the memo of compromise, both the parties have signed and it was attested by the counsel for both sides. On the date of hearing, both the parties were also present before this Court requesting the Court to compound the offence. The 7th petitioner Mouli Syed Mohammed and the 5th petitioner R. M. B. Jaffar Ali have filed separate affidavits staling that they have agreed for the terms of compromise entered into between the parties. They have also mentioned in the affidavits that they were not able to come and appear before the Court on 30-4-2001 and the other petitioners have signed in the memo of compromise. When this Court asked the parties with regard to the terms of compromise, they represented that they are ready to compromise the matter and also give undertaking that they will not indulge in quarrel in future. The memo of compromise has been filed before this Court on 30-4-2001 in Tamil and the same is as follows :- In view of the above development, I am of the view that this Court could exercise its powers under S. 401, Cr. P.C. to compound the above offence. Section 320, Cr. P.C. provides compounding of offences. Under sub-clause (6) of Section 320, Cr. P.C., this Court can exercise its powers of revision and allow the parties to compound the offence. Under those circumstances, the parties are allowed to compound the offence. as requested by them through the memo of compromise filed before this Court. Accordingly, the memo of compromise is recorded and consequently, the conviction and the sentence imposed upon the petitioners are set aside and they are acquitted. The trial Court is directed to refund the fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioners. In view of the above order passed in Cri. O.P. No. 567 of 1999, the revision in Cri. R.C. No. 1134 of 1998 does not survive. The trial Court is directed to refund the fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioners. In view of the above order passed in Cri. O.P. No. 567 of 1999, the revision in Cri. R.C. No. 1134 of 1998 does not survive. With these observations, both Cri. O.P. No. 567 of 1999 and Cri. R.C. No. 1134 of 1998 are disposed of. Before parting with this case, I shall appreciate the efforts taken by Mr. Balaguru, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Parthiban, the learned counsel for the first respondent, in effecting the compromise between the parties. This Court also would express its appreciation and pleasure in noticing that both the parties have ultimately realised that "unity alone is strength" and hugged each other happily in the Court itself. It is really a beautiful sight. Order accordingly.