Judgment :- 1. The petitioners are arrayed as accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.822 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Theni and they stood tried and charged for the commission of offences under Sections 452, 427 and 506(ii) I.P.C. The trial Court after a full-fledged trial, has convicted them for the commission of offence under Section 452 I.P.C. and imposed a sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- with default sentence of three months simple imprisonment and for the commission of offence under Section 427 I.P.C. convicted them to three months rigorous imprisonment and further ordered the sentences shall run concurrently and further ordered set off the period of incarceration already undergone by the third accused during the course of the investigation and trial, under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The trial Court further acquitted the petitioners/accused for the commission of offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. 2. The petitioners/accused, aggrieved by the same, preferred the appeal in C.A.No.37 of 2007, on the file of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Periyakulam. The lower appellate Court has also confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, vide order dated 30.05.2008 and hence, this Criminal Revision Case is filed. 3. During pendency of this Criminal Revision Case, the first petitioner/first accused has died on 17.03.2009 and a memo to that effect has been filed and therefore the charges framed against the first petitioner/first accused have become abated this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as against him. 4. Mr.J.Sulthan Basha, learned counsel, representing M/s.Ajmal Associates would submit that during pendency of this Criminal Revision Case, the petitioners 2 and 3/accused 2 and 3 as well as P.W.1/de facto complainant have amicably settled the matter and the only impediment is that the offence under Section 452 I.P.C. cannot be compounded for the reason that it is a non-compoundable offence and prays for modification of the conviction into one under Section 451 I.P.C. for the reason that admittedly the petitioners/accused were acquitted for the commission of offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. and the State has not preferred any appeal and therefore the acquittal on that charge has become final and in the light of the acquittal of the said charge, the ingredients of Section 452 I.P.C. have not been made out and therefore prays for appropriate orders. 5. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) on instructions would confirm that the petitioners 2 and 3/accused 2 and 3 as well as P.W.1/de facto complainant have compromised the matter and taking into consideration the compromise memo dated 18.02.2015, signed by the petitioners 2 and 3/accused 2 and P.W.1/de facto complainant, appropriate orders may be passed. 6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The prosecution in order to sustain their case has examined P.Ws.1 to 8, marked Exs.P.1 to 5 and M.Os.1 to 3 before the trial Court and all the petitioners/accused were also questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against them in the evidence tendered by the prosecution and they denied it as false. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let in and no documents were marked. 8. The trial Court based on the oral and documentary evidences, has convicted the petitioners/accused under Sections 452 and 427 I.P.C. and imposed the sentence as stated above and acquitted them for the commission of offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. and it was also confirmed in the appeal. 9. A perusal of the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses would disclose that accused 1 and 2 had entered into the premises of P.W.1 armed with rod and sticks and threatened them with dire consequences and also damaged the articles. However, with regard to the commission of offence for criminal intimidation, the petitioners/accused were acquitted and as already pointed out, with regard to the said acquittal, the State did not file any appeal. 10. It is relevant to extract Section 452 I.P.C. hereunder: “House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.- Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine”. 11. The testimonies of the witnesses would disclose that though P.W.1 was threatened with dire consequences, there is no evidence to show that she was restrained. 11. The testimonies of the witnesses would disclose that though P.W.1 was threatened with dire consequences, there is no evidence to show that she was restrained. Admittedly, the petitioners/accused were acquitted for the commission of offence of criminal intimidation and in the light of the said acquittal, this Court is of the view that the ingredients of offence under Section 452 I.P.C. have not been made out and only they should be convicted for the commission of offence under Section 451 I.P.C. In so far as, the conviction and sentence under Section 427 I.P.C. is concerned, it is a compoundable offence. 12. The petitioners/accused 2 and 3 as well as P.W.1/de facto complainant are also present before this Court and P.W.1/de facto complainant would submit that the matter in issue has been amicably settled between them and she has no objection for acquitting the petitioners 2 and 3/accused 2 and 3. The petitioners 2 and 3/accused 2 and 3 would also submit that the matter has been compromised and they would not indulge in such kind of activities in future. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioners 2 and 3/accused 2 and 3 under Section 452 I.P.C. is modified to one of under Section 451 I.P.C. and they are imposed with sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- with default sentence of three months simple imprisonment. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court under Section 427 I.P.C. is confirmed. 13. Since this Court has modified the conviction from 452 I.P.C. to 451 I.P.C., which is a compoundable offence and that Section 427 I.P.C. is also compoundable and taking into consideration the compounding of the offence in lieu of compromise memo, dated 18.02.2015, signed by P.W.1/de facto complainant as well as the petitioners 1 and 2/accused, counter-signed by the learned counsel for the petitioners 2 and 3/accused 2 and 3, the offences under Sections 451 and 427 I.P.C. are compounded. 14. In the light of the compounding of the offences, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed under Sections 451 and 427 I.P.C. against the petitioners 2 and 3/accused 2 and 3 are set aside and they are acquitted. Fine amount, if any, paid by them shall be refunded to them. 14. In the light of the compounding of the offences, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed under Sections 451 and 427 I.P.C. against the petitioners 2 and 3/accused 2 and 3 are set aside and they are acquitted. Fine amount, if any, paid by them shall be refunded to them. The bail bonds executed by the petitioners 2 and 3/accused 2 and 3 shall stand terminated.