JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bundi dated 22.02.1999 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 has partly disallowed the application filed by the petitioners for permitting them to compound the matter in appeal against the judgment dated 15.10.1998 passed by the learned trial court in Criminal Case No. 81/1992 whereby the petitioners had been convicted for the offence under Section 326, 324, 326/34 and 324/34 I.P.C. 2. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of conviction dated 15.10.1998, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and which was pending before the said court. In the said appeal, a compromise application came to be filed on 20.02.1999 seeking permission of the court to compound the matter. In the application it had been submitted that the parties have resolved the dispute and both the parties want to live amicably more particularly in view of the fact that the injured Bhola Shankar and the accused Chandra Shekhar are maternal uncle and nephew ( ekek&Hkkatk ) and the injured Bhola Shankar and the accused Kuber are uncle and nephew ( pkpk&Hkrhtk ) On account of the closeness of relationship, the parties have resolved their dispute amicable and sought the permission of the court to compound the matter and to prosecute the accused petitioners by accepting the aforesaid compromise application dated 20.02.1999. 3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge before whom the appeal was pending permitted the petitioners to compound the matter pertaining to the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. but so far as the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. was concerned, the same was declined as the same is not compoundable. Hence, this petition before this court. 4. The petitioners are represented by their counsel whereas the injured Bhola Shankar is represented by his counsel and the Public Prosecutor.I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon series of decisions of this court in similar facts and circumstances has permitted the parties to compound the matter looking to the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the issue which in the instant case is more than 16 years old and the parties are close relatives and now have been living amicably during the aforesaid period. 6. 6. While relying upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jalaluddin v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2001 Cri.L.J. 4944 , Ram Ekbal Upadhyay and Others v. State of Bihar, reported in 2001 (10) SCC 233 , Badrilal v. State of M.P., reported in 2005 (7) SCC 55 and P.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in JT 2005 (3) SC 277 as well as by this court in Ram Gopal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1991 RCC 96 , Banwari & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2002 (2) RCC 754 , Govind Prasad and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2002 (3) RCC 1544 and Mahendra v. State and Ors., S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1930/2006, decided on 13.10.2006 , in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I deem it just and proper to allow these petitions and permit the petitioners and the respondents to compound the matter. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 22.02.1999 so far as the permission has been declined for compounding the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. is set aside. The said permission, in the facts and circumstances, is granted with a view to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of court. The judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial court dated 15.10.1998, in the facts and circumstances, is set aside.Consequently, both these petitions are disposed of, as above.Petition Allowed - Composition Allowed - Conviction Set Aside. *******