JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 12.12.2015 made in Cr.M.P.No.155 of 2015 in C.A.No.21 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Dindigul.) 1. This criminal revision case has been filed by the petitioner/appellant against the order passed by the appellate Court, namely, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 12.12.2015, the present revision petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on the complaint of one Samikannu/ second respondent, the first respondent Police has registered a case against this petitioner and two others in Crime No. 315 of 2009, for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 307 r/w 109 IPC. The first respondent Police has also filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul in PRC No.19 of 2009 and the same was committed to the Court of Sessions and was made over to the Sessions Court, Dindigul for trial. 3. The trial Court in conclusion of the trial, found this petitioner and two others guilty, convicted and sentenced them as follows: Accused Section of Law Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount Accused No.1 307 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for seven years Rs.1,000/- default, three months rigorous imprisonment Accused Nos.2 & 3 341 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one month 323 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months 307 r/w 109 Rigorous imprisonment for seven years Rs.1000/-, default, three months of rigorous imprisonment 4. Aggrieved over the order of the trial Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Dindigul in C.A.No.21 of 2013. 5. Pending appeal, at the intervention of the elders, both the petitioner as well as the defacto complainant have amicably arrived at a settlement and the second respondent has also agreed to file a compromise memo before the appellate Court. Accordingly, a joint compromise memo dated 14.09.2015 was filed on behalf of the petitioner and the second respondent, before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Dindigul in Cr.M.P.No.155 of 2015 in C.A.No.21 of 2013 and the said application was dismissed in the Mega Lok Adalat on 12.12.2014, on the ground that the offence is not compoundable. Accordingly, a joint compromise memo dated 14.09.2015 was filed on behalf of the petitioner and the second respondent, before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Dindigul in Cr.M.P.No.155 of 2015 in C.A.No.21 of 2013 and the said application was dismissed in the Mega Lok Adalat on 12.12.2014, on the ground that the offence is not compoundable. As against the same, the present revision case is filed by the petitioner / accused No.1 that the compromise has been arrived only with an intention to settle their dispute amicably and to have a quietus to the issue. The learned Sessions Court ought to have encouraged the compromise by allowing the petition, but instead, had dismissed the application, as it is not compoundable offence. Even though the offence is not compoundable, based on the facts and circumstances and the nature of the offence, the first appellate Court ought to have entertained the application filed for compounding the offence. 6. He further submitted that the appellate Court ought to have entertained the application as per Section 320(5) CrPC and this Court can also compound the offence as provided under Section 320(6) CrPC. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2005 1 SCC 347, wherein it has been held as follows: “1. Special leave granted. Learned counsel for the parties heard on the application made under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for leave to compound the offence. The appellant has been convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Although the offence under Section 326 of the Code is non-compoundable, learned counsel for the parties submit that through the intervention of well-wishers the parties, who are from the same locality have reconciled their differences to preserve amity and good relations. They pray for leave to compound the offence. The appellant stabbed D.Narsinga Rao, Respondent No.2 herein, after an altercation near the pan shop owned by him. This was an unfortunate incident and the learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client has a feeling of remorse. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent 2 also joins in the prayer for permission to compound the offence. 2. The appellant stabbed D.Narsinga Rao, Respondent No.2 herein, after an altercation near the pan shop owned by him. This was an unfortunate incident and the learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client has a feeling of remorse. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent 2 also joins in the prayer for permission to compound the offence. 2. Taking an overall view of the facts and circumstances, we grant leave as a special case of the parties to compound the offence on condition that the appellant pays Rs.10,000/- to respondent 2 by way of compensation for the physical injury suffered by him. The amount of compensation shall be deposited in the court of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hydrabad within one month from today. If the amount is not deposited within the period allowed, the conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below against the appellant under Section 326 IPC of the Code shall stand. However, if the amount is deposited within the time allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 326 of IPC shall be set aside. Respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to withdraw the said amount unconditionally. The appellant shall in in the meanwhile be enlarged on bail by the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge on such terms as he thinks fit. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand and another reported in 1988 AIR 2111, wherein it has been held as follows: “The accused were acquitted by the trial Court, but they were convicted by the High Court for the offence under Section 307 IPC. This offence is not compoundable under law. The parties, however, want to treat it a special case, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. It is said and indeed not disputed that one of the accused is a lawyer practising in the lower Court. There was a counter case arising out of the same transaction. It is said that this case has already been compromised. The decision of this Court in Suresh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh has been also referred to in support of the plea for permission to compound the offence. There was a counter case arising out of the same transaction. It is said that this case has already been compromised. The decision of this Court in Suresh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh has been also referred to in support of the plea for permission to compound the offence. We are therefore, direct the trial Judge to accord permission to compound the offence, after giving an opportunity to the parties and after being satisfied with the compromise agreed upon. The connected papers filed in this connection before this Court be transmitted to the trial Court for the purpose. The parties, if they want may file additional documents.” Therefore, the learned Counsel prayed for allowing this revision. 8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl Side) by relying on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anita Maria Dias & another Vs State of Maharashtra & another, submitted that even under Section 482 of CrPC, this Court is not having powers to compound such an offence under Section 307 IPC. 9. This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed on record. 10. A perusal of the records shows that pending appeal, the parties have arrived at a settlement in order to give quietus to the issue and they have also filed an application to compound the offence as per Section 320(5) CrPC, before the appellate Court. 11. Section 320(5) CrPC empowers the appellate Court to compound certain offences, even during the appeal and the High Court during the revision under Section 401 CrPC, provided the offence should be a compoundable offence. But in this case, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 307 IPC, which is not a compoundable offence and therefore, the appellate Court rightly dismissed the application filed by both the petitioner and the defacto complainant for compounding the offence. 12. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the first appellate Court in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner to compound the offence. However, in the larger interest of the parties, the appellate Court can modify the sentence depending upon the other subsequent developments, which have taken place subsequent to the order of conviction. 13. However, in the larger interest of the parties, the appellate Court can modify the sentence depending upon the other subsequent developments, which have taken place subsequent to the order of conviction. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anita Maria Dias's case cited supra held that in case the petitioner is not having any previous antecedent, the offence under Section 307 IPC can be quashed, taking into account the compromise arrived at between the parties. 14. In the case on hand, according to the petitioner, he has not involved in any other case than this case and as such he is not having any bad antecedent and therefore, the compromise memo can be taken into consideration by the appellate Court as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, while deciding the appeal on merits on the question of sentence. 15. Though this Court is not inclined to accept the plea of the petitioner, this Court while deciding the correctness of the order passed by the appellate Court in entertaining the application filed under Section 320 CrPC, cannot go beyond the scope of this revision petition. The High Courts can also entertain the compromise memo pending revision under Section 401 CrPC, if the revision is filed against any conviction imposed on the petitioner. Since this petition is filed as against the order of the appellate Court in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 320(5) CrPC, it cannot be maintained and therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the said order and therefore, this revision petition is dismissed. 16. However, taking into consideration a compromise was arrived between the petitioner and the defacto complainant to maintain peace and harmony, the object for which, the compromise is made can not be defeated in the larger interest of the parties, the appellate Court can decide the appeal on its merits and also by considering the compromise arrived at between the parties. While deciding the quantum of punishment, the appellate court can also take into consideration the orders of the Hon'ble supreme Court in Anita Maria Dias's case and the decision in Mahesh Chand's case and shall take a decision on the appeal as early as possible not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.