ORDER : SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J. 1. These interlocutory applications are filed for recording the compromise arrived at between the accused/petitioner and the de facto complainant/2 nd respondent, and seeking permission to compound the offence under Section 326 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, “IPC”), in C.C. No.559 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla. 2. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent. Perused the impugned order. 3. The instant present Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the judgment, dated 18.02.2009, passed by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Crl.A. No.52 of 2008. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in C.C. No.559 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla, Guntur District, and was charged for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and by judgment passed under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C., convicted him and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate court. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. 4. The learned counsel for the parties submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and in pursuance of the settlement deed, they have filed a joint memo of compromise. It is further submitted that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the same may be taken on record and the conviction recorded against the petitioner may be set aside by compounding the offence. 5. Perused the joint memo filed by both the parties. On a plain reading of Section 320 of Cr.P.C., it appears that the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable. However, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another , (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “58. 5. Perused the joint memo filed by both the parties. On a plain reading of Section 320 of Cr.P.C., it appears that the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable. However, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another , (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.l.R. if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.” 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in another case, Krishnappa and Others v. State of Karnataka , Crl.A. No.1488 of 2012 decided on 29.09.2021 , has observed how offences which are not compoundable in nature can nevertheless be quashed by the High Court by exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In paragraphs 11 to 13, it was held as follows: “11. True it is that offences which are 'non-compoundable' cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of 'compoundable' offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice. 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 pre- dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. 13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are pre- dominantly 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 extra-ordinary 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. (2014) 6 SCC 466 ..” 7. In another case, H.N. Pandakumar v. The State of Karnataka , Misc. Appln. No.2667 of 2024 in SLP (crl) No.895 of 2024 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken the view that how an offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC can be compounded by invoking power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “4. Subsequently, the applicant/petitioner has filed the present Miscellaneous Application seeking relief for compounding the offense under Section 326 IPC, based on a compromise reached between the parties after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. The applicant/petitioner states that all the disputes between the applicant/petitioner's family and the complainant's family have been amicably resolved with the intervention of elders and villagers. The applicant/ petitioner has agreed to pay Rs. 5,80,000/- as total compensation to the complainant as part of the settlement. The applicant/petitioner states that all the disputes between the applicant/petitioner's family and the complainant's family have been amicably resolved with the intervention of elders and villagers. The applicant/ petitioner has agreed to pay Rs. 5,80,000/- as total compensation to the complainant as part of the settlement. The complainant has filed an Interlocutory Application No. 227010/2024 for the impleadment in support of the petitioner's prayer for compounding the offense, affirming the compromise and seeking closure of the matter to ensure peace and harmony between the parties. The complainant and the petitioner reside in close proximity, with only a road separating their houses, making it essential to maintain a peaceful relationship between the two families. The parties are also distantly related, and any lingering hostility is likely to disturb the social fabric of their neighbourhood. The compromise covers not only the criminal case but also related property disputes, including the right of way, which had been a point of contention for years. The applicant/petitioner's commitment to paying the agreed compensation reflects a genuine effort to end the discord and uphold the terms of the settlement. This Court notes that the complainant's unequivocal support for the compromise further underscores the voluntary nature of the settlement and the shared desire to put an end to all disputes.” 8. Having perused the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court mentioned above, it appears that the parties have amicably settled the matter between themselves in the presence of elders and well- wishers. It further appears that the parties personally appeared before this Court. The de facto complainant also personally appeared and submitted that he is satisfied with the terms of the compromise . Considering all aspects, although the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC is generally non-compoundable, in the present situation, since the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and are residing peacefully, this Court is not inclined to disturb the harmony between them. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this is a fit case where the Court can exercise its extraordinary inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice. It appears that subjecting the petitioner to incarceration would not serve the interests of the parties or the harmony in society. 10. Accordingly, in my view, compounding the offence against the present petitioner will serve substantial justice to the parties. It appears that subjecting the petitioner to incarceration would not serve the interests of the parties or the harmony in society. 10. Accordingly, in my view, compounding the offence against the present petitioner will serve substantial justice to the parties. Therefore, the impugned order of conviction recorded by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla, Guntur District, in C.C. No.559 of 2006 and confirmed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Guntur, in Crl.A. No.52 of 2008, is hereby set aside in terms of the compromise between the parties. The petitioner shall be set at liberty; the sureties standing in his favour are also discharged. 11. With the above observations, I.A. Nos.2, 3 and 5 and instant criminal revision case are disposed of. 12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall sand closed.