JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (Oral)—Present revision petition has been filed for setting aside conviction of petitioner under Section 354 IPC in case FIR No. 159/2004 dated 25.7.2004 registered in Police Station Jawali, District Kangra in Criminal Case No. 68-II/2004. 2. Petitioner was convicted under Section 354 IPC by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 68-II/2004 titled State of H.P. v. Sanjeev Kumar and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. However, in the appeal, preferred by the petitioner, learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment of one month. 3. During pendency of present petition, an application for compounding the offence in question has been filed as victim and her complainant father has compromised the matter with petitioner. The compromise deed arrived at between the parties has also been placed on record as Annexure C-1. 4. Counsel for petitioner submits that both parties, habitants of nearby villages, for maintaining peaceful and harmonious relations, have amicably settled the dispute and all disputes between them have been put to an end by way of compromise placed on record and now none of them will pursue or file any claim or further proceedings in relation to present dispute and this matter has been compromised without any pressure and with free consent of parties and therefore, application seeking permission to compound the offence has jointly been filed. 5. Sh. O.P. Negi, Advocate, appearing under instructions of Sh. C.D. Negi, Advocate, original counsel for PW-2 victim and PW-1 her father endorses contents of the application as well as of compromise and submits that parties want to live in peace and harmony resolving the controversy involved between them. He also endorses written compromise placed on record. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has also relied upon pronouncement of the Apex Court in Surat Singh v. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2012) 12 SCC 772 wherein identical offence in similar circumstances was permitted to be compounded and petitioner therein was acquitted on the basis of compromise between the parties. 7. Offence in question was committed on 24.7.2004 and on that day offence under Section 354 IPC was compoundable under Section 320(2) Cr. 7. Offence in question was committed on 24.7.2004 and on that day offence under Section 354 IPC was compoundable under Section 320(2) Cr. P.C., with permission of the Court by woman assaulted to whom the criminal force was used. In present case, petitioner-accused, PW-2 victim and her father PW-1 Girdhari Lal have filed joint application for compounding the offence which is signed by all of them as well as by counsel representing them. 8. In above facts and circumstances, the parties are permitted to compound the offence and as a result whereof petitioner is acquitted from the offences charges with and the present petition is disposed of accordingly alongwith pending application(s).