JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. In this writ petition Award, Annexure P-1, passed by the Bench of National Lok Adalat at Bilaspur on 12.11.2016 is under challenge. 2. The settlement has arrived at in a Criminal Case, which was registered against the respondents herein, under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') in Police Station, Barmana, District Bilaspur. 3. The case was registered at the instance of the complainant. The complainant, at a later stage, settled the matter with the accused persons amicably. Therefore, with the consent of the complainant and also the prosecution, the case was referred by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur for amicable settlement to the Bench of National Lok Adalat. 4. The same was taken up by the National Lok Adalat on 12.11.2016. On the basis of written Compromise, Ext. P-1, the Bench of National Lok Adalat has ordered the acquittal of respondents-accused of charges framed against them for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 5. The Award passed by the National Lok Adalat was assailed by the State in this Court by filing Criminal Revision No. 293 of 2017. The same was dismissed leaving it opened to the petitioner to challenge the Award by filing writ petition. It is in this backdrop, present writ petition came to be filed. 6. Be it stated that an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC now is not compoundable either at the instance of the complainant or with the permission of the Court. The observations made by the Bench of National Lok Adalat that the offences allegedly committed by the respondents/accused are compoundable, therefore, are contrary to the provisions contained under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC is not compoundable. The offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, of course, are compoundable under the Section ibid. Any how irrespective of the observation in the impugned Award, we feel that the parties none else, but neighbourers irrespective of having quarreled with each other have now patched up all their differences and entered upon Compromise Ext. P-1, placed on the record of this case. Any how irrespective of the observation in the impugned Award, we feel that the parties none else, but neighbourers irrespective of having quarreled with each other have now patched up all their differences and entered upon Compromise Ext. P-1, placed on the record of this case. Even if the case is ordered to be opened and the trial is allowed to proceed further, the complainant is not going to support the prosecution case, as she has already compromised the dispute. Therefore, there is no likelihood to the prosecution of the respondents/accused in case their prosecution is ordered to continue. 7. Therefore, taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in Anita Maria Dias and another Versus State of Maharashtra and another, (2018) 3 SCC 290 , we find the present a fit case, where the matter should not be ordered to be reopened. The FIR No.131 of 2012 registered against the respondents/accused to the extent of offence, they have allegedly committed for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.