- (1.)THE non-applicant Simon Dular had filed a complaint Under Sections 323 and 506, Penal Code, in the Court of Shri R.-C. Mukherji, Second Class Magistrate, Jashpurnagar, against the applicant the Eev. Father Godfrey Meeus, a missionary, but the District Magistrate, Raigarh, transferred it on 22nd January 1919 to the file of Shri Mahapatrao, also Second Class Magistrate, Jaahpurnagar, as the non. applicant is a member of the Janapada Sabha of which Shri Mukherji is Deputy Chief Executive Officer. Prior to this, on 12th November 1948, the applicant had in the non-applicant's presence presented a compromise petition in Shri Mukherji' a Court,-but Shri Mukherji was absent on that data and the case was adjourned to 29th November 1948 when he noted in the order-sheet that the petition should have come from the non-applicant Dular and not from the accused applicant.
(2.)PROCEEDINGS, were stayed in view of the transfer application and after the District Magistrate had passed the aforesaid order transferring the case to Shri Mahapatrao, there were several hearings before the charge was framed on 6th May 1949. On 23rd of that month, the applicant's counsel filed an application for the giving of effect to the compromise of 12th November 1948, but the non applicant's counsel retorted by filing a written statement in which it was asserted that the non-applicant's signature to the petition had been obtained by coercion and threats. The trial Court refused, however, to adjudicate on this point as it was raised when the trial was approaching its close and had not been raised when Shri Mukherji was presiding or even before the District Magistrate at the time of the transfer application.
(3.)IN Murray v. Queen-Empress 31 cal. 103, it was pointed out that a compromise of a compoundable case deprived the Magistrate of his jurisdiction to try it, and in Md. Kanni v. Inayatullah 39 Mad. 946 : A. I. R. (3) 1916 Mad. 854 : 16 Cr. L. J. 803, Abdur Rahim J. held that a composition arrived at between the parties of a compoundable case was complete as soon as it was made and had the effect of an acquittal in spite of the fact that one o the par-ties subsequently resiled from the compromise. In Kumaraiivami v. Kupputwami 41 Mad. 685 : A. I. R. (6) 1919 Mad. 879 : 19 Cr. L. J. 359, the rule in that case was followed by a Division Bench; and in Emperor v. Jhangtoo Barai 62 ALL. 254 : A. I. R. (17) 1930 ALL. 409 : 31 cr. L. 3, 1215, Young J. t as he then was, was of of the view that if it had been proved that the parties signed the document and understood its contents it was incompetent for either of them to withdraw from it. Young J, in that case relied on N the aforesaid Calcutta case and the two Madras ' cases and also observed that while a breach of -the agreement or composition might give rise to other remedies, a composition once effected can-not be withdrawn. Niyogi J. too followed these 4 cases in Mt, Bambai v. Mt, Chandra Kumari Devi A. I. R. (27) 1940 Nag. 181: 41 Cr. L. J. 287.