ORDER : 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg whereby application moved for compromise between the petitioner and the complainant after recording of conviction by the learned trial Court, has been rejected. 2. The case, in nutshell, is that a complaint case under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. was filed against the petitioner by the original complainant, namely, Bhagwan Das and same was registered as Complaint Case No.6849/2015 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC. After full dressed trial, the petitioner was convicted under Section 420, 467, 468 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- for each of these offences along with sentence of R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.200/- for offence under Section 471 of the IPC vide order dated 14.10.2019 and S.I. for 7 days was inflicted upon the petitioner in case of each default in payment of the fine amount. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court dated 14.10.2019 was challenged in appeal before the learned Sessions Court and during pendency of the appeal, a joint application was moved to record compromise on 31.05.2022. The statement of wife of original complainant, namely Smt. Triveni was recorded on 08.06.2022 where she stated that they have amicably settled the dispute without any coercion, greed or pressure and she does not want to pursue the criminal case further against the petitioner. The learned Sessions Court vide order dated 03.08.2022 held that the petitioner has been convicted by the learned trial Court and sections under which he has been convicted are serious one and thus no compromise can be recorded under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. It was further observed that the offences are not compoundable in nature according to the provisions of Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. and thus, rejected the application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application was moved after conviction and during pendency of appeal before the Sessions Court, and joint application was moved for recording compromise and acquittal of the petitioner, however same has been rejected and further decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court have not been considered by the learned Court below. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application was moved after conviction and during pendency of appeal before the Sessions Court, and joint application was moved for recording compromise and acquittal of the petitioner, however same has been rejected and further decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court have not been considered by the learned Court below. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would support the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the State would oppose the arguments so advanced. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Court for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and thereafter appeal was preferred which is pending before the learned Sessions Court wherein a joint application was moved by the petitioner and the wife of the complainant to record compromise and the statement of the wife of the original complainant was also recorded, but the learned appellate Court rejected the aforesaid application. 8. In the matter of Deva Ram Vs. The State of Rajashan, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 275 , while dealing with the similar issue in para 4, 5, 6 and 7 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 4. An application has been filed in this Court by the appellant praying that in view of the settlement, offence may be permitted to be compounded. It is stated that the original complainant and the appellant are close relatives. It is stated that the original complainant expired on 30-05-1994. Thereafter, the son of the complainant is not keen on prosecuting the proceedings. The appellant is a senior citizen who suffers from various ailments. It is further stated that due to intervention of the elders of the village, dispute between the parties is resolved. The appellant has agreed to pay settlement amount to Arjun Ram. It is further stated in the application that the appellant has paid the fine amount. An affidavit has also been filed by Jagdish Prasad, power-of-attorney holder of the appellant confirming that the matter is settled. 5. Arjun Ram has also filed affidavit confirming that the matter is settled and the Appellant has paid the agreed amount to him. Arjun Ram, Respondent 2 herein has filed another affidavit dated 17-7-2014 stating that his brothers viz. An affidavit has also been filed by Jagdish Prasad, power-of-attorney holder of the appellant confirming that the matter is settled. 5. Arjun Ram has also filed affidavit confirming that the matter is settled and the Appellant has paid the agreed amount to him. Arjun Ram, Respondent 2 herein has filed another affidavit dated 17-7-2014 stating that his brothers viz. (1) Hanuman Ram, (2) Hajari Ram, (3) Narayan Ram and (4) Ghirdhari Ram have issued power of attorney dated 12-06-2014 in his favour thereby nominating, constituting and appointing him for taking steps in connection with the present appeal. Paragraph 2 of the said affidavit reads thus: “2. It is submitted that my brothers namely: (1) Hanuman Ram, (2) Hajari Ram, (3) Narayan Ram, (4) Ghirdhari Ram, all sons and legal heirs of late Shri Hardeva Ram (the original complainant) have issued a power of attorney dated 12-06-2014, thereby nominating, constituting and appointing me i.e., Arjun Ram s/o Late Hardeva Ram for doing or executing all or any of the acts or things in connection with the Criminal Appeal No. 1165 of 2014, which is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-l at pp. 90 to 91.” 6. We must note that copy of deed of compromise dated 25-2-20l4 is also filed in the Court. The learned counsel for the parties have confirmed that the matter is settled. 7. We are informed that out of two years' imprisonment the appellant has undergone six months' imprisonment. The offence u/s 420 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the court by the person who is cheated. Since the parties are related to each other and they have decided to accord a quietus to their disputes and live peacefully, we permit them to compound the offence. Hence, the offence under Section 420 IPC for which the appellant was convicted is compounded because it is compoundable with the permission of the court. The appellant is acquitted of the said charge.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Criminal Appeal No.1489/2012 in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2021 SCC Online 834, decided on 29.09.2021, has in paragraph 12, 13 & 19 held as under:- 12. The appellant is acquitted of the said charge.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Criminal Appeal No.1489/2012 in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2021 SCC Online 834, decided on 29.09.2021, has in paragraph 12, 13 & 19 held as under:- 12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system. 13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.3 and Laxmi Narayan (Supra). 19. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.3 and Laxmi Narayan (Supra). 19. We thus sumup and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.” 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , in paragraph 12, has held as under:- “12. Therefore, after applying the parameters, it is to be noted that the parties in the present case have come with a case that they want to maintain good and cordial relations in future. Such thought is necessary for the society and, therefore, we find this to be a fit case where inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are required to be invoked. This is a fit case where the present applicants need not be asked to prosecute their appeal against conviction.” 11. Recently, again the High Court of Karnataka, taking into consideration the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Criminal Petition No. 7649/2022 decided on 16.08.2022 in the matter of Smt. Lakshmibai Vs. This is a fit case where the present applicants need not be asked to prosecute their appeal against conviction.” 11. Recently, again the High Court of Karnataka, taking into consideration the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Criminal Petition No. 7649/2022 decided on 16.08.2022 in the matter of Smt. Lakshmibai Vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr., reported in 2022 LiveLaw Karnataka 336, has held as under:- “The Apex Court, right from the year 2003 in the case of B.S.JOSHI V. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (2003)4 SCC 675 which is subsequently followed by the Apex Court in the case of NIKHIL MERCHANT V. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION reported in (2008)9 SCC 677 and in the case of MANOJ SHARMA V. STATE AND OTHERS reported in (2008)16 SCC 1 has considered the fact that post conviction, a settlement can be accepted and proceedings can be obliterated by the Court, hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In the light of the judgments so rendered by the Apex Court which all concern the issue whether the matter could be settled or compromised between the parties post conviction wherein the Apex Court has permitted such compromise to be recorded post conviction by a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quashed the proceedings and also in view of the facts obtaining in the case at hand, I deem it appropriate to accept the compromise so filed and set aside the order of conviction passed against the petitioner.” 13. In view of the application moved by the petitioner and respondent No.1 and taking note of the aforesaid legal position as it stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by the various High Courts, this Court is of the firm view that the present is a fit case where the application moved by the petitioner to record compromise and acquittal of the petitioner can be allowed invoking the inherent powers conferred upon this count under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the application moved by the petitioner and respondent No.1 dated 31.05.2022 is hereby allowed. Order passed by the learned Sessions Court dated 03.08.2022 in Cr.A. No. 260/2019 is hereby set aside. 14. As a consequence, in the light of the settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties, the Criminal Appeal, i.e. Cr.A. No.260/2019, pending before the VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) stands allowed. Order passed by the learned Sessions Court dated 03.08.2022 in Cr.A. No. 260/2019 is hereby set aside. 14. As a consequence, in the light of the settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties, the Criminal Appeal, i.e. Cr.A. No.260/2019, pending before the VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) stands allowed. The Petitioner/Appellant is acquitted of all the charges leveled against him.