ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant was charged under Sections 354 and 452 IPC for allegedly committing trespass in the premises which were being occupied by the complainant Pramila Chakole and her husband as tenants and that the appellant tried to outrage her modesty. The trial court convicted the appellant on both counts and sentenced him to undergo three months simple imprisonment both under Sections 354 and 452 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs 3000 and Rs 5000 under Sections 354 and 452 IPC respectively. The appellant, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the first appellate court. The appellate court dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellant. 3. The appellant, being aggrieved, filed a revision petition before the High Court which has been dismissed by the impugned order. 4. Counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has already undergone the entire sentence of imprisonment and the fine imposed has also been deposited. Now he has filed an application for compounding the offence. The complainant has also filed an affidavit consenting to the terms of the compounding of offence. The offence under Section 354 is compoundable whereas the offence under Section 452 is not compoundable. Shri Ashok Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that from the reading of the complaint and the charge framed, an offence under Section 452 is not made out as he did not trespass into the house occupied by the complainant for putting the complainant in the fear of hurt or of assault or of wrongful restraint. Learned Senior Counsel also a contends that from a reading of the complaint and the charge framed, if at all, an offence under Section 451 is made out which provides for the commission of house trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment. From the reading of the allegations made against the appellant, it is evident that the appellant had entered the house for seeking sexual favours from the complainant and not for causing any physical hurt or b assault or wrongful restraint. We agree with the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the offence made out against the appellant is only under Section 451 which is compoundable and not under Section 452. 5. We agree with the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the offence made out against the appellant is only under Section 451 which is compoundable and not under Section 452. 5. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the offence committed by the appellant is ordered to be compounded with consequential obligations resulting in his acquittal in terms of clause (8) of Section 320, Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.