ORDER The petitioner has preferred this special leave petition against the impugned judgment dated 20.10.2016 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.60 of 1992, disallowing the said appeal and affirming the judgment dated 06.02.1992 of the trial court whereby the petitioner was convicted for offences under sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo 4 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, on each count with default clause. 2. Application for impleadment is allowed. 3. Cause title be amended accordingly. 4. Leave granted. 5. Despite service of notice, the respondent-State has not chosen to appear. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the application for compromise/compounding of offence. 7. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the incident has occurred almost 30 years ago. Since the complainant/s and the appellant-accused belong to the same family and are living in the same house, they have buried their animosity and settled their disputes amicably in writing under an agreement letter dated 28.07.2017, copy of which is already placed on the file. The injured victims are brother and sister-in-law of the appellant. It is also stated in the aforesaid application for compromise/compounding of offence that there is no untoward incident has ever taken place after the date of incident. 8. Though the offences under sections 307 and 326 of the IPC are non-compoundable, having regard to the fact that the incident in the present case did not have an impact on the society in general, and having regard to the fact that the dispute between the parties has been settled amicably and there is no likelihood of the repetition of such incident, we allow the application for compromise/compounding of offence and set aside the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below against the appellant by exercising our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The appellant is ordered to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Since the appellant is confined in jail, he is ordered to be released from custody forthwith if not required in any other case. 9. Hence, the appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Appeal allowed.