JUDGMENT (Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to call for the entire records in connection with S.C.No.145 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, Salem District and set aside the judgment dated 31.05.2017.) 1. The Appellant/Accused has preferred this Criminal Appeal as against the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on him in S.C.No.145 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, Salem District, dated 31.05.2017. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Salem, in S.C.No.145 of 2016 as per judgment dated 31.05.2017. Learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the charges framed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Salem and the complaint preferred by the victim/Prosecutrix under Ex.P1, in which the substances or materials attracting the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, are not found. The Trial Court had charged the Accused for the offences under Section 417 of the IPC, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. The Prosecution had examined 12 witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P10. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of the Prosecutrix P.W.1, the complaint under Ex.P1, and the FIR under Ex.P8. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the FIR was delayed. The FIR was registered on 15.05.2015, and the Prosecutrix was subjected to the medical examination on 25.05.2015. As per the complaint under Ex.P1, the Prosecutrix is aged 22 years. Further, as per the contents of the complaint, she had consensual sex with the Accused. The FIR itself is belated. Therefore, it is not admissible. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that P.W.1 is the Prosecutrix. P.W.2 is the mother of the Prosecutrix. P.W.3 is the paternal uncle. As per the complaint, she had sat on dharna in front of the house of the Appellant because, after having physical relationship for quite a long time, he suddenly absconded from the village. Therefore, she was unable to trace him. Consequently, she came to know that he had reached the village and was hiding in the house. As per the complaint, she had sat on dharna in front of the house of the Appellant because, after having physical relationship for quite a long time, he suddenly absconded from the village. Therefore, she was unable to trace him. Consequently, she came to know that he had reached the village and was hiding in the house. On hearing about the same, she sat on dharna in front of the house of the Accused, demanding him to marry her. The brother of the Prosecutrix had taken a photo. These things are available in the complaint, but the brother had not been examined as witness. The photographs alleged to have been taken by him were not marked in the trial. 5. Based on appreciation of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Salem, by judgment dated 31.05.2017 had acquitted the Accused charged under Sections 450 and 376 of the IPC and convicted the Accused under Section 417 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. Aggrieved by the same, the Appeal had been filed. 6. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that, after the judgment, the Accused had married another girl. The Prosecutrix also married another man and is living in separate places. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the Trial Court. Further, he invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the Doctor''s evidence. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently objected to the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant and submitted that there are sufficient materials available before the Court regarding the conduct of the Accused, attracting the provision of Section 417 of the IPC. As per the complaint under Ex.P1 and the contents of the FIR under Ex.P8 and the deposition of the Prosecutrix as P.W.1, it is clear that the Appellant herein has made advancement to the Prosecutrix on the ground that he is in love with her, he wanted to marry her. With the promise of marriage, he enticed her and had physical relationship with her. Suddenly, he absconded from the village, which forced the Prosecutrix to sit in dharna in front of the house of the Accused. That itself is sufficient to hold the Accused guilty for offences and the Prosecutrix had stuck to her complaint. With the promise of marriage, he enticed her and had physical relationship with her. Suddenly, he absconded from the village, which forced the Prosecutrix to sit in dharna in front of the house of the Accused. That itself is sufficient to hold the Accused guilty for offences and the Prosecutrix had stuck to her complaint. Further, the deposition of the Prosecutrix is proved by the medical evidence of the Doctor, P.W.6, the medical evidence certificate issued by the Doctor, after examining the Prosecutrix under Ex.P4. Therefore, there are sufficient materials to convict the Accused. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Salem, to convict the Accused under Section 417 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, is a well-reasoned judgment that does not warrant any interference by this Court. This Appeal lacks merit and is to be dismissed. 8. At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant/Accused had married another women and living with his family and the Victim/Prosecutrix had also married another man and living with her family and hence, learned Counsel for the Appellant sought to modify the judgment of conviction and sentence. 9. Considering the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, to verify the subsequent developments, this Court directed the Investigation Officer in this case to conduct enquiry and file status report. The Respondent Police had filed status report through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 10. On perusal of the status report filed by the Respondent Police, the Victim/Prosecutrix is married and settled. The Appellant/Accused is also married and settled. 11. Considering the subsequent development that the Appellant/Accused is married and living with his family and the Victim/Prosecutrix is also married and living with her family and on careful reading of Section 320 of Cr.P.C., it is seen that the offence of cheating under Section 417 IPC can be compounded, if the person/victim, who was cheated is willing to compound the same. The Appellant/Accused had already paid compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as ordered by the trial Court. 12. The Appellant/Accused had already paid compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as ordered by the trial Court. 12. In the light of the above discussion, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the sentence of imprisonment and compensation awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, Salem District in S.C.No.145 of 2016, dated 31.05.2017 is modified as follows: (a) The period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the Appellant is considered as sentence. (b) Considering the status of the Appellant/Accused as coolie, instead of confirming the judgment of conviction, it is modified as compensation to be paid to the Prosecutrix viz., a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only). (c) The Appellant/Accused is directed to pay the compensation in S.C.No.145 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, Salem District on or before 09.08.2023. (d) The status report filed by the Respondent Police shall form part of this judgment. 13. The learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, Salem District is directed to permit the Prosecutrix/Complainant in S.C.No.145 of 2017 to withdraw the entire amount viz., Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) available in the Court deposit. Intimation shall be sent to the Prosecutrix through the Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal Police Station, Salem District, by issuing notice to the Prosecutrix and also assist her in withdrawing the amount from the office of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, Salem District. 14. Compliance report shall be submitted to this Court by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, Salem District on or before 11.08.2023. Call the case on 11.08.2023 for reporting compliance.