JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against,the judgment and order dated 27.5.2011 whereby the present appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 148, I.P.C. and has been given benefit of doubt under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. 2. The only contention of the present appellant is that the main offences have been compromised by the injured persons and the present appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 148, I.P.C. because this offence could not be compromised under Section 320, Cr.P.C. During course of argument, a compromise has been presented before this Court which has taken place between the injured Subhash, Babli, Kanina and Raju and the present appellant. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the present petitioner is a Government servant. He is on the verge of retirement and if his conviction is maintained, it will effect the service of the petitioner and looking at the factum of compromise, the present petitioner should be acquitted for the offence under Section 148, I.P.C. 4. Without going into the merit of the case, looking at the fact that injured Subhash, Babli, Kanina and Raju have compromised with the present appellant and other injured person Panney Singh, who has been produced as PW-16, has been declared hostile and he had nothing said against the present appellant, the conviction of the appellant deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted from the charge under Section 148, I.P.C.Petition allowed. *******