JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Sundernagar, District Mandi, pronounced an order of conviction upon the revisionist herein qua commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 504 and 506 IPC. In an appeal preferred therefrom by the accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, sequelled the latter affirming the pronouncement recorded upon the accused by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Sundernagar, District Mandi. The accused/convict standing aggrieved by the concurrently recorded renditions of both the Courts below proceeded to assail them by preferring a Revision herebefore. 2. During the pendency of the revision before this Court the learned counsel for the accused/convict revisionist herein, has instituted an application under Section 482 read with Section 320 Cr.P.C. whereby he seeks permission of this Court for compounding the offences committed by him under Sections 447, 427, 504 and 506 IPC and has also tendered a compromise deed bearing Ext.A-1 executed inter se the petitioner/accused and the legal heir of the complainant. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that since the complainant in the instant case has since died yet with the provisions engrafted in Section 320 4 (b) of the Cr.P.C bestowing upon his legal heir (s) whom he states at the bar to be his widow qua hers thereupon holding the statutory competence to compound the relevant offences. The relevant provisions of Section 320 4 (b) of the Cr.P.C stand extracted hereinafter:- “4 (b). When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this Section is dead, the legal representative, as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (5 of 1908) of such person may, with the consent of the Court compound such offence.” The statement at the bar of the counsel for the revisionist stands accepted especially when it falls within the ambit of Section 320 4 (b) of the Cr.P.C. 3. The statements on oath of the legal heir of the complainant Smt. Geeta Devi besides also of the accused stand duly reduced into writing and also stand signatured/thumb marked by each of them wherein they communicate qua Ext.A-1 holding their respective signatures/thumb marking, signatures/thumb marks whereof stand testified by them to exist respectively therein in blue circles at Marks-A and B. 4. The offences qua which a concurrent order of conviction stood pronounced upon the accused/convict is compoundable yet the accused/convict and the legal heir of the complainant while endeavouring to seek composition of the offences whereupon an order of conviction stood concurrently pronounced upon the accused/convict, are enjoined to obtain the permission of this Court. 5. Be that as it may, this Court would proceed to accord the apposite permission to them only when satiation stands begotten qua the relevant principles encapsulated in the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Ramji Lal and another Vs. State of Haryana, 1983 (1) SCC 368 , Mohd. Rafi vs. State of U.P., 1998 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal 455, M.D.Balan Mian and another vs. State of Bihar and another 2001 AIR (SCW) 5190, Khursheed and another vs. State of U.P in Appeal (Crl.) No. 1302 of 2007, Dasan vs. State of Kerala and another 2014 (2) ECrC 384. The aforestated pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court empower Courts of law to proceed to permit the accused/convict and the informant/complainant to enter into a compromise also empower the Court concerned to grant the apposite permission to them for compounding the offence (s) only on vivid display occurring qua its facilitating restoration of harmony in society besides its promoting goodwill and amity amongst them. 6. Since the accused/convict and the LR of the complainant in their respective statements recorded on oath reduced into writing and respectively signatured/thumb marked by them echo therein qua their apposite conjoint endeavour intending to promote goodwill and peace amongst them necessarily hence the aforesaid principle encapsulated in the aforereferred judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court for thereupon this Court holding a facilitation to permit them to compound the offences whereupon the accused stood concurrently convicted by both the Courts below stands visibly satiated. 7. Consequently, this Court accepts their joint proposal to compound the offences committed by the accused/convict. In sequel thereto the revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence concurrently imposed upon the accused/convict by both the Courts below is set aside. The accused/convict is acquitted. Bail bonds are cancelled.