JUDGMENT:- The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.5.2001, passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jaipur District in Case No.380/2001 whereby he acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 336 & 504 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 1.1.2000, the complainant Dinesh Kumar (PW.1) submitted a written report (Ex.P.1) in police Station Ramganj, Jaipur stating therein that on that day the accused respondents abusing him and pelting stone. 3. Upon the aforesaid incident, the police registered a case (FIR No.1 /200) under Sections 336, 504 IPC and investigation started. After investigation, the police filed a challan under Sections 336 & 504 IPC before the court of Add!. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jaipur City. The learned Magistrate framed charges against accused for the offence under Sections 336 & 504 IPC and• the charges were read over and explained to the accused respondents who denied all the allegations and claimed for trial. 4. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as one witness and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the statements of accused respondent were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, both the parties were entered into a compromise and filed an application for compromise. On the basis of the compromise, the trial court vide its judgment and order dated 18-5-2001 acquitted the accused respondents from the charges framed against them. 5. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.5.2001, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the present appeal with the prayer to quash the same. 6. In this appeal it has been submitted by Mr. B.N. Sandu. Public Prosecutor that the trial court has committed an error by acquitting the accused respondents on the basis of compromise because Section 320 Cr.P.C does not permit for compromise in the alleged offence under Section 336 IPC. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 7. On the other hand. Mr. Samunder Singh learned counsel for the accused respondents has contended that the trial court has rightly passed the order of acquittal dated 18.5.2001 after proper appreciation of evidence and no interference is called for by this Court. 8. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused respondent and also gone through the record of the case. 8. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused respondent and also gone through the record of the case. 9. Section 320 Cr. P. C and sub-sections (8) and (9) are read as under; 320-Compounding of offences.- (1) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table;- "(8) The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. (9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section." 10. According to the aforesaid sub-section (9) does not permit a compromise for the offence under Section 336 IPC, Attention of this Court was drawn upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case Sanjit Datta v. State of Tripura & Another, reported in 2006) 13 SCC 294 wherein the Honble Supreme Court held as under:- "Both the parties have filed petitions for compounding the offence, So far as the offence under Section 457 IPC is concerned, the same is not compoundable, but it is well settled that even if the offence is not compoundable, while awarding sentence, the court can take into consideration the effect of compounding. It has been stated that the appellant has remained in custody for a period of about three months. In our view, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone." 11. It has been stated that the appellant has remained in custody for a period of about three months. In our view, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone." 11. Similarly, in another case, Hasi Mohan Barman and Another v. State of Assam and Another reported in (2008) 1 SCC 184 : AIR 2008 SC 388 Honble Supreme Court held as under:- "S.320-Non-compoundable offence Compromise- Relevance of -Held factor of compromise cannot be recorded in such a case but the effect of compromise can be taken into consideration for reducing the sentence- Appellants convicted under Section 313 r/w S.34 IPC i.e. offence of causing miscarriage without womans consent and sentenced to 5 years RI and fine of Rs.7000- Sentence reduced by the High Court to 3 years RI and fine of Rs.5000appellant Hasi Mohan having an affair with the complainant and due to intimate relationship the complainant becoming pregnant-Appellants refusal to marry the complainant and causing miscarriage despite her protect-During the pendency of the case complainant marrying the appellant and filing an affidavit to this effect in the Court that she has entered into a compromise with the appellants and wants the criminal case to be withdrawn as they are living peacefully. Supreme Court reducing the sentence of appellants to .the one already undergone i.e. about 10 months However, conviction, of appellants under Section 313 IPC maintained- Penal Code, 1860-S.313". 12. For these reasons, I modify the order dated 18.5.200l, as under:- I acquit the accused respondents from the offence under Section 504 IPC which comes under the provisions of Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. So far as offence under Section 336 is concerned, which is not compoundable under Section 320 (9) Cr.P.C. Hence. I maintain the conviction and award the sentence to the accused respondents till rising of the Court. 13. This appeal is partly allowed. Appeal partly allowed.