Unwarul Haque, guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, for each of the offences, sentences to run concurrently. There appears to be no dispute about the fact that the persons, who were convicted by the judgments and orders impugned and the complainant (opposite party No.2) had entered into a compromise and they wanted compounding of all the offences on that basis. At the appellate stage, a compromise petition was filed, seeking permission for compounding of the offences in terms of Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. It further transpires that the appellate Court while allowing the parties to get the offences compounded, had adjourned the hearing for a particular date for adducing evidence only for the purpose of accepting the compromise for compounding the offences. Since the parties absented themselves, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on merits. The petitioner’s husband, namely, Unwarul Haque, thereafter, filed a revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., before this Court, which gave rise to Criminal Revision No. 258 of 2012 (Unwarul Haque Vs. State of Bihar).
