A compromise arrived at between the parties in respect of a compoundable offence without the permission of the court has the effect of an acquittal of the accused and the court is bound to record the same.

1. - The two accused petitioners have filed this revision against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur dated 17-9-84. The revision arises under the following circumstances:

2. On a complaint filed by non-petitioner Yashwant Singh against the present petitioners, the court took cognizance of an offence Under Section 448 I.P.C. against them. When the matter was pending for framing charges, an application was moved signed by both the parties and their learned Counsel on 4-4-84 that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the complainant did not want to further prosecute the case. It was further prayed that the accused may be acquitted. 4-4-1984 was not the date fixed in the proceedings of this case and, therefore, the learned Magistrate recorded an order on the back of this application to the effect that the parties with their counsel had filed this application, the matter may be put up on the date of hearing along with case file. The next date was 18-8-1984. On that day when the case came up before the court, the presiding Officer had already proceeded on transfer and his successor had not taken over. The case was, therefore, adjourned to 5-9-1984. On 5-9-1984 an application was filed on behalf of the complainant that the compromise had been entered into between the parties on account of the allurement given by the accused persons to the complainant that his milk booth which had been discontinued shall be restored and that a letter for such a restoration had been shown to him. However, that booth had not been restored and, therefore, the complainant was not now willing to get the compromise recorded. The accused-persons filed a reply to this application. It was not denied that there was an assurance about the restoration of the milk booth but it was on the condition that the complainant was to deposit the arrears within 15 days whereupon his licence for the milk booth would be restored. It was, however, contended that the complainant failed to deposit the arrears as agreed and, therefore, the booth could not be restored. It was; however, contended that the complainant cannot go back on the compromise already arrived at on 4-4-1984. The reply also referred to a suit filed by the complainant for restoration of the milk booth and its dismissal. Reference was also made to the fact that the Dairy Corporation has also filed a suit for recovery of the arrears against the complainant which was pending.

3. The matter came up before the learned Magistrate on 17-9-1984. After hearing the parties in respect of the application dated 5-9-1984, the court found that since the complainant was disputing the compromise, so the compromise cannot be acted upon and, therefore, the prosecution should be continued. He refused to verify the compromise. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in case a compromise had been arrived at between the parties in respect of the offence Under Section 448 I.P.C. which was compoundable without the permission of the court, the accused must deemed to have been acquitted Under Section 320(8) Cr. P.C. and the learned Magistrate was not justified in refusing to verify the compromise and proceed further with the case.

6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for non-petitioner No. 1 contended that as the compromise had been arrived at on account of allurement, it was not with the free consent of the complainant and, therefore, it was no compromise at all and the learned Magistrate was, therefore, justified in refusing to verify the same. He further submitted that the learned Magistrate was further justified in making an enquiry on the application dated 5-9-1984 to find out whether the compromise had been legally arrived at. In this connection he placed reliance upon Mangilal and Anr. v. The State 1967 L.J. 158 and Bandhu Padma and