JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. The challenge in this revision is made to the following:- (i) Judgment and order dated 12.12.2022, passed in Criminal Case No. 161 of 2019, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Avdhesh Dubey and Others, by the court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By it, the revisionists have been convicted under Section 325 read with 34 IPC and Section 452 read with 34 IPC and sentenced as hereunder:- (a) Under Section 325 read with 34 IPC, simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. And; (b) Under Section 452 read with 34 IPC, simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- (ii) Judgment and order dated 24.08.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2023, Avdhesh Dubey and Others Vs. State, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, Disttrict Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the order passed in the case was affirmed. 2. The revisionist no.2, Vikas Dubey, and the respondent no.2 have filed a joint compounding application along with the affidavits. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionists and the respondent no.2 would submit that the parties have settled the dispute amicably; they are residents of the same village; now, they are living in peace and harmony. 5. The revisionist no.1, Sanjeev Dubey, The revisionist no.3, Akhilesh Dubey and the revisionist no.4, Avdhesh Dubey, are in Sub-Jail, Haldwani. They have joined the proceedings through video conferencing. The revisionist no.2, Vikas Dubey, and the respondent no.2, the informant, are personally present, as identified by their respective counsel. The parties have verified the compromise. 6. The Court particularly asked the respondent no.2. He would submit that now he does not want to proceed with the case. 7. This is revision against conviction. Post conviction under certain circumstances, compounding may be permitted as held in the case of Ram Gopal & another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; 2021 SCC Online SC 834, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:- “19. He would submit that now he does not want to proceed with the case. 7. This is revision against conviction. Post conviction under certain circumstances, compounding may be permitted as held in the case of Ram Gopal & another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; 2021 SCC Online SC 834, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:- “19. We thus sum-up 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 extra-ordinary 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. 20. Having appraised the afore-stated para-meters and weighing upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the two appeals before us, we are inclined to invoke powers under Article 142 and quash the criminal proceedings and consequently set aside the conviction in both the appeals. We say so for the reasons that: Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in these appeals can be categorized as purely personal or having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature; Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for which the Appellants have been convicted, do not appear to exhibit their mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest; Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and injuries, it is immaterial that the trial against the Appellants had been concluded or their appeal(s) against conviction stand dismissed; Fourthly, the parties on their own volition, without any coercion or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have buried their differences and wish to accord a quietus to their dispute(s); Fifthly, the occurrence(s) in both the cases took place way back in the years 2000 and 1995, respectively. There is nothing on record to evince that either before or after the purported compromise, any untoward incident transpired between the parties; Sixthly, since the Appellants and the complainant(s) are residents of the same village(s) and/or work in close vicinity, the quashing of criminal proceedings will advance peace, harmony, and fellowship amongst the parties who have decided to forget and forgive any ill-will and have no vengeance against each other; and Seventhly, the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain un-effected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties and/or resultant acquittal of the Appellants; more so looking at their present age.” 8. Having considered the nature of offence and other attending circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is a case, which may be decided on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be allowed. 9. The revision is allowed. Impugned judgment and orders dated 12.12.2022 and 24.08.2024 are set-aside. The revisionists are acquitted of the charge under Section 325 read with 34 IPC and Section 452 read with 34 IPC. 10. The revisionist no.1, Sanjeev Dubey, The revisionist no.3, Akhilesh Dubey and the revisionist no.4, Avdhesh Dubey, are in Sub-Jail, Haldwani. Let they be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 11. Compounding Application No. 4 of 2024 stands disposed of, accordingly. 12. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, today itself, on payment of usual charges.