Abdur Rahim, J.

1. In this case it has been found upon the evidence that the parties compounded their disputes out of Court. There were three cases which arose out of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents. In the first of these cases, the petitioner was the accused and in the second case which was a counter case to the first, the petitioner was the complainant. In the third case, that is, the one in question, the petitioner was the complainant. In the other two cases, the accused were convicted and sentenced to tree months rigorous imprisonment each. Then they appealed to the Joint Magistrate and while the appeals were pending, the parties entered into an agreement that all the disputes between them should be settled. The Joint Magistrate has found that the arrangement settling the disputes extended to the case which was then pending in the Sub-Magistrates Court. As a result of the compromise, the two appeals in the Appellate Court were compounded with the permission of the Court, and the accused acquitted. When, however, the accused in the present case submitted a petition to the Sub-Magistrate saying that this case also was the subject of the compromise, the