G. Srinivasulu v. S.H.O Kandukur .

(1) The sole accused in sessions case no 34/90 on the file of the asst. Sessions judge, kandukuru is the revision petitioner. He was charge sheeted under section 307 ipc on the allegation that he stabbed pw 1 with a knife in an attempt to commit murder. The injury inflicted by the accused is a stab wound on the lower part of the body of pw 1.

(2) During the trial of the sessions case the accused and pw 1 who are no other than the cousins have entered into a compromise at the instance of the respective family members and the village elders.

(3) In pursuance of the said compromise the accused filed crlmp no 33/90 under section 482 crl p c requesting the learned asst. Sessions judge to permit the accused and the defacto complainant to enter into a compromise. The learned asst. Sessions judge has rejected that request.

(4) Aggrieved by the said decision the accused preferred this revision case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence is the outcome of a petty quarrel. Both pw 1 and the accused being close relatives are living side by side and their lands are also situated side by side.

(5) The insistance on the part of the court in conducting the trial will only result in bad blood being continued between both the families, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted. In order therefore to enable pw 1 and the accused to live amicably and peacefully and to avoid tension between the two families in future, i feel that the compromise entered into between pw 1 and the accused should be allowed inspite of the fact that the offence punishable under section 307 ipc is not a compoundable offence.

(6) In support of my view i follow the decision of the supreme court reported in mahesh chand vs. State of rajasthan (1) air 1988 sc 2111. In that case the accused were acquitted by the trial court, but they were convicted by the high court for the offence under section 307 ipc. In that case one of the accused was a lawyer practising in the lower court. There was a counter case arising out of the same transaction which was already compromised. Under these circumstances, the supreme court held that it is proper that the trial court should be permitted to compound the offence. This case also stands on a better footing because both pw 1 and the accused are cousins and they are living side by side even prior to and subsequent to the offence. Their lands are also situated side by side and unless there is amicable settlement between the parties, there is possibility of constant enemity existing between the two families in future. Following the decision of the supreme court referred to above, i hold that the order of the learned asst. Sessions judge in crl m p no. 33/90 should be set aside,

(7) The criminal revision case is therefore allowed and the learned asst. Sessions judge, kandukuru is directed to accord permission to the revision petitioner to compound the offence, after giving an opportunity to the parties and after being satisfied that the alleged compromise is agreed upon voluntarily between the parties and that it is genuine.