ORDER : (K. V. Jayakumar, J.) This Criminal Miscellaneous case has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [hereinafter referred to as, ‘the BNSS’] by the accused in Crime No.604/2005. 2. The petitioner, Mubasheer, was the 4th accused in C.C.No.128/2006 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Manjeri for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 411 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by one Eranhikkal Mammad (3rd respondent herein), Crime No.604/2005 of Manjeri Police Station was registered against the petitioner and four others. 4. The prosecution allegation was that on 06.12.2004 accused nos.1 and 2 had committed theft of a motor cycle owned by the defacto complainant Mammad. Accused no.3 assisted the accused nos.1 and 2 in concealing the motor cycle. Further, accused nos.4 and 5 purchased the motor cycle knowing that it was a stolen property. 5. The petitioner/4th accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 411 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The petitioner challenged the findings of the learned Magistrate and preferred Crl.Appeal No.281/2006 before the Sessions Court, Manjeri. The Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-III), Manjeri as per judgment dated 06.11.2008, allowed the appeal in part, modified and reduced the substantive sentence imposed by the trial court from SI for one year to SI for three months. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Court, the petitioner approached this Court and preferred Crl.R.P.No.469/2010 which was dismissed as per order dated 23.09.2016. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, due to financial constraints, the petitioner could not approach the Apex Court challenging the findings of the High Court. In the meantime, the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant (Eranjikkal Mammad) approached him and expressed his willingness to compound the offence which had occurred as early as in the year 2004. the offences alleged against the accused are compoundable only with the permission of the Court. 9. In the meanwhile, on 23.12.2024, the petitioner was arrested by the 2nd respondent and now he is undergoing imprisonment. The 3 rd respondent/defacto complainant has sworn an affidavit dated 24.12.2024 expressing his willingness to compound the offence as against the petitioner. 10. the offences alleged against the accused are compoundable only with the permission of the Court. 9. In the meanwhile, on 23.12.2024, the petitioner was arrested by the 2nd respondent and now he is undergoing imprisonment. The 3 rd respondent/defacto complainant has sworn an affidavit dated 24.12.2024 expressing his willingness to compound the offence as against the petitioner. 10. Now the petitioner approached this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS claiming the following reliefs: (i) Direct release of the petitioner from the District Jail, Manjeri wherein he is undergoing simple imprisonment in pursuance to Annexure-III judgment in connection with C.C.No.128/2006 on the file of JFCM Court-I, Manjeri taking note of the compounding of the offence with the defacto complainant as evidenced by Annexure V affidavit sworn to by him. And (ii) To pass such and other orders or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice. 11. I have heard Adv.G.Hariharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Adv.E.C.Bineesh, learned Public Prosecutor. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the matter is compounded between the parties, the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/4th accused is liable to be quashed by this Court invoking the powers vested on this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. The petitioner has produced the affidavit dated 24.12.2024 sworn by the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant expressing his willing to compound the offence. 13. It is submitted that, this Court has got ample powers to do complete justice under Section 528 of the BNSS. The power of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS are unlimited and illimitable. 14. Moreover, Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 359 of the BNSS) does not prescribe a time limit within which an offence can be compounded. Therefore, an offence can be compounded even at a post conviction stage, after the culmination of revisional stage. 15. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the compounding was effected at a belated stage and it may not be proper to set aside the conviction and sentence against the petitioner, at this belated stage. 16. Therefore, an offence can be compounded even at a post conviction stage, after the culmination of revisional stage. 15. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the compounding was effected at a belated stage and it may not be proper to set aside the conviction and sentence against the petitioner, at this belated stage. 16. The prime questions arise for consideration in the present case are: (i) Whether the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused could be set aside by this Court, invoking the powers conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS, after post revisional stage, on the premise that the matter has been compounded between the accused and the defacto complainant?. (ii) Whether the Code of Criminal Procedure or the BNSS prescribe any time limit for the compounding of an offence? 17. Admittedly, the conviction and the sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused was confirmed by the first appellate court in criminal appeal and this Court in criminal revision. 18. Before further discussion, it may be worthwhile to extract the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and the BNSS. Indian Penal Code – Sections 379 and 411 “379 IPC. Punishment for theft.—Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” “411 IPC. Dishonestly receiving stolen property.— Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” Code of Criminal Procedure – Sections 320 and 482 “320.Compounding of Offences (1): The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table: Offence IPC Section applicable Person by whom offence may be compounded 1 2 3 Theft 379 The owner of the property stolen. Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx Dishonestly receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen. 411 The owner of the property stolen. Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx Dishonestly receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen. 411 The owner of the property stolen. xxxxxxxxxx 320(4)(a) : When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is under the age of eighteen years or is an idiot or a lunatic, any person competent to contract on his behalf, may, with the permission of the Court compound such offence. 320(4)(b) : When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is dead, the legal representative, as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) of such person may, with the consent of the Court compound such offence. 320(6) : A High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section. “320(8) The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.” “482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court: -Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” The BNSS- Section 528 “528. Saving of inherent powers of High Court: – Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 19. On going through Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it could be seen that the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 411 IPC are compoundable with the permission of the Court. Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it clear that, when the offence is compounded between the parties, the compounding has the effect of an acquittal. Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it clear that, when the offence is compounded between the parties, the compounding has the effect of an acquittal. On a bare perusal of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 359 of the BNSS, it could be seen that, no time limit is prescribed in those sections with regard to the compounding of an offence. In fact Section 320(4)(b) of the CrPC and Section 359(4)(b) of the BNSS would envisage a situation wherein an offence can be compounded by the legal representative of a deceased person, who is legally competent to compound the offence. 20. Sub-clause (6) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it clear that the High Court or a Court of Sessions could permit the composition of an offence while revision is pending. 21. On a bare reading of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is clear that Section 482 overrides Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 22. On a conjoint reading of the above referred sections, it is clear that, this Court while exercising powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (528 of the BNSS) can permit the parties to compound an offence if they have amicably settled the matter. This Court has wide powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to do complete justice to the parties. 23. In Pratheesh v. State of Kerala [2023 KHC 5796], the Honourable Apex Court opined 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Paragraph 5 of the Pratheesh’s case (supra) reads thus: “5. With regard to the nature of the offence under S.326 IPC, 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. With regard to the nature of the offence under S.326 IPC, 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 CrPC 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 CrPC or vested in this Court under Art. 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of S.320 CrPC. 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 S.482 CrPC. 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 S.482 CrPC read with S.320 CrPC.” 24. In Ramgopal & anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2021 KHC 6543] the Apex Court acquitted the accused, the petitioners therein, since the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compounded the matter. 25. In Ramgopals’s case (supra), the offence alleged against the accused were under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 326 IPC. It is pertinent to note that Section 326 of the Penal Code is non compoundable offence. 26. In Pratheesh’s case (supra) also the offences alleged against the accused are the same. However, in Pratheesh’s case (supra), the parties have amicably settled the dispute and filed a compounding petition at the revisional stage. It is pertinent to note that Section 326 of the Penal Code is non compoundable offence. 26. In Pratheesh’s case (supra) also the offences alleged against the accused are the same. However, in Pratheesh’s case (supra), the parties have amicably settled the dispute and filed a compounding petition at the revisional stage. But, in the instant case, the facts are slightly different. The parties have arrived at an amicable settlement even after the disposal of the revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to the financial constraints of the petitioner, he could not approach the Apex Court, challenging the findings of this Court in criminal revision. 27. Now coming back to the facts of the instant case. The defacto complainant and the accused in this case settled the matter in a post revisional stage. It is submitted that, even though the criminal revision petition was disposed of in the year 2016, due to indigency of the petitioner, he could not approach the Apex Court challenging the finding of conviction and sentence. It is pertinent to note that at the time of commission of the offence, the petitioner was aged 18 years. Conclusions: In the light of the above discussion, this Court has laid down the following principles: (i) Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not fix a time limit within which an offence could be compounded. (ii) An offence can be compounded even at a post revisional stage by this Court while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (528 of the BNSS). (iii) Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure overrides Section 320 of the Code. 28. Applying the law laid down in this case, I am of the considered opinion that, this is a fit case wherein the powers provided under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the erstwhile CrPC) to wind up the proceedings. In the result, Crl.M.C.No.11044/2024 is allowed in the following manner: (i) The petitioner/4th accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, invoking the powers under Section 482 r/w 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (ii) The petitioner/4th accused is set at liberty. (iii) The petitioner/4th accused shall be released forthwith. The Registry shall forthwith communicate the gist of this order to the Superintendent of Jail, Manjeri Sub Jail.