ORDER : P.D. Rajan, J. This revision petition is filed by the accused against the judgment in Crl. A. 340 of 2003 of Sessions Judge, Manjeri. The accused were charge sheeted in C.C.84 of 1995 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi under Section 143, 147, 148, 448, 324, 326 r/w 149 IPC. Learned Magistrate after trial convicted A1, A2, A3, A5, A6, A9, A10 and A11 under Section 143, 147, 448, 323 325 IPC r/w 149 IPC and they were acquitted for offence punishable under Section 148, 324 and 326 IPC. The accused were sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month under Section 143 IPC, simple imprisonment for three months under Section 147 IPC, simple imprisonment for one month under Section 448 IPC, simple imprisonment for three months under Section 323 IPC and simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 325 IPC. A4, A7 and A8 are absconding and their case was split up and re-filed in the trial court. Against that, they preferred the above criminal appeal before Sessions Court, Manjeri where the learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence against A7, A8, A10 and A11 and they were acquitted. The conviction and sentence against A1 to A3 and A5, A6 and A9 are confirmed. Being aggrieved by that, they preferred this revision petition. 2. The charge against the accused is that on 28.8.1993 at 9 am, accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the verandah of the house of PW1 Mohammed Kutty and A1 to A8 attacked him with sticks. A1, A9 to A11 attacked his wife also with sticks and thereby committed the offence. PW1 and PW2 sustained serious injuries and they were removed to Government Hospital, Tirur. Thanoor police took their statement but they failed to register an F.I.R. In the circumstances, PW1 filed the complaint in the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi, where the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and tried the accused. To prove the offence, complainant examined PW1 to PW5 and his documents were marked as Ext.P1 to P3. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning them. The accused examined DW1, DW2 and DW3 and marked Ext.D1 to D6. Trial court convicted the accused. 3. To prove the offence, complainant examined PW1 to PW5 and his documents were marked as Ext.P1 to P3. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning them. The accused examined DW1, DW2 and DW3 and marked Ext.D1 to D6. Trial court convicted the accused. 3. When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for revision petitioners submitted that they have settled the matter out of court and no grievance subsists now. Revision petitioners were present before this court on 1.9.2016. During pendency of appeal, first revision petitioner died. S.I, Parappanangadi produced the Death Certificate, which was marked as Ext.C1. PW1 and PW2 are also present and submitted that they have settled the matter through the intervention of mediators and no further grievance subsists. Both parties filed Crl. M.A. 5582 of 2016. According to section 320(1) Cr. PC, 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. According to Section 320 (2) Cr. PC, 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, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that table. Therefore it is seen that an offence specified in column 1 and 2 of the table can be compounded by the person specified in the third column of the table. It is immaterial whether such a person was a complainant or not or whether the case was instituted upon a police report or on a private complaint. But after conviction it may be noted that the permission of the court is necessary, even in case of offence covered under Section (1). 4. Offence under Section 448 and 323 IPC are compoundable offences under Section 320(1) Cr. P.C. Offence under Section 325 IPC is compoundable with permission of the court. Crl. M.A. 5582 of 2016 is filed seeking leave to compound the offence. In the light of the compromise, leave is granted. According to Section 320(6) Cr. 4. Offence under Section 448 and 323 IPC are compoundable offences under Section 320(1) Cr. P.C. Offence under Section 325 IPC is compoundable with permission of the court. Crl. M.A. 5582 of 2016 is filed seeking leave to compound the offence. In the light of the compromise, leave is granted. According to Section 320(6) Cr. P.C, a High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section. According to Section 320(8) Cr. P.C, 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. 5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012(4) KLT 108), it was held that offences under Section 147, 148 ought to be liberally compounded particularly where other offences are compoundable. State of Madhya Pradesh by Act 17 of 1999 vide its amendment had permitted to compound the offence under Section 506(II) IPC, 147 and 148 IPC by amended schedule under Section 320 Cr.P.C as compoundable offences. In Gian singh's case (supra), paragraph 45 refers to the guidelines issued in Madhu Limaye ( 1977(4) SCC 551 ), Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335), L. Muniswamy ( 1977(2)SCC 699), Simrikhia ( 1990(2) SCC 437 ), B.S. Joshi ( 2003(4) SCC 675 ) and Ram lal ( 1999 (2) SCC 213 ). Clause (d) reads as follows:- "Minor offences as under Section 279, IPC may be permitted to be compounded on the basis of legitimate settlement between the parties. Yet another offence which remains non-compoundable is Section 506(II) IPC, which is punishable with 7 years imprisonment. It is the judicial experience that an offence under Section 506 IPC in most cases is based on the oral declaration with different shades of intention. Another set of offences, which ought to be liberally compounded, are Sections 147 and 148, IPC, more particularly where other offences are compoundable. It may be added here that the State of Madhya Pradesh vide M.P. Act No.17 of 1999 (Section 3) has made Sections 506(II) IPC, 147 IPC and 148, IPC compoundable offences by amending the schedule under Section 320, Cr. P.C". It may be added here that the State of Madhya Pradesh vide M.P. Act No.17 of 1999 (Section 3) has made Sections 506(II) IPC, 147 IPC and 148, IPC compoundable offences by amending the schedule under Section 320, Cr. P.C". In view of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the above decision, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court under Section 147, 148 r/w 149 IPC are set aside invoking section 482 Cr. P.C and the accused are acquitted and set at liberty. The offence under Section 448 and 323 IPC are compoundable and offence under Section 325 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the court. Hence permission granted. In view of the compromise, the accused are acquitted under Section 320(8) Cr. P.C. The revision petition is disposed of as above.