ORDER : Crl.M.A No.3 of 2023 in Crl.R.P.No.3079 of 2006 The revision petitioners, along with additional respondents 2 and 3 have filed this petition under Sections 320(8) and 482 Cr.P.C., for compounding the offence involved. 2. The petitioners were convicted and sentenced by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thodupuzha, for the commission of offence under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 326 I.P.C read with Section 34 I.P.C. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. No separate punishment was awarded for the offences under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C. In the appeal filed before the Sessions Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence. The accused were accordingly, sentenced by the appellate court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Section 447 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay fine Rs.5,000/- each under Section 326 I.P.C. Challenging the above concurrent findings of conviction and the sentence imposed by the appellate court, the petitioners preferred Crl.R.P No.3079/2006. In the meanwhile, additional respondents 2 and 3 filed Crl.R.P No.242/2007, seeking enhancement of sentence awarded by the appellate court. 3. When both these cases were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel representing both parties submitted that the issue has been amicably settled between them and hence, it is highly necessary to compound the offence and close the revision proceedings. On the basis of the application filed by the revision petitioners in Crl.R.P No.242/2007 as Crl.M.A No.2/2023, they were impleaded as additional respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.R.P No.3079/2006. 4. In the present application filed by the petitioners and additional respondents 2 and 3, it is stated that the additional respondents 2 and 3 are having no grievance at all against the revision petitioners, since the matter has been amicably settled between them. Accordingly, it is requested that the composition of the offence may be accepted and the revision petitioners in Crl.R.P No.3079/2006 to be acquitted. 5. With regard to the nature of the offence under Section 326 I.P.C., which is non-compoundable, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners brought to my notice the decision of the Apex Court in Ramgopal & anr. Accordingly, it is requested that the composition of the offence may be accepted and the revision petitioners in Crl.R.P No.3079/2006 to be acquitted. 5. With regard to the nature of the offence under Section 326 I.P.C., which is non-compoundable, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners brought to my notice the decision of the Apex Court in Ramgopal & anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2021 KHC 6543], wherein it has been held as follows: “19. We thus sum – up and hold that as opposed to S.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 extra – ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under S.482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Art.142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of S.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.” Thus it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision that in appropriate cases where the parties have amicably settled the dispute, and the victim willingnessly consented to the nullification, it is highly necessary to wind up the proceedings in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that this is a fit case where the offences involved are to be compounded invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 320 Cr.P.C. 6. In the result, Crl.M.A No.3/2023 is allowed. The offence under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 326, for which the petitioners are convicted by the court below, are compounded and the petitioners are acquitted under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl.R.P.No.3079 of 2006 In the light of the above order in Crl.M.A No.3/2023, this Crl.R.P No.3079/2023 is disposed of, setting aside the impugned judgment of the court below. Crl.R.P.No.242 of 2007 Crl.R.P No.242 of 2007 is dismissed as not pressed, in the light of the above settlement between the parties, as evident from this petition.