MT. RAMBAI W/O. BAHADURSINGH Vs. MT. CHANDRA KUMARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case arises on a report made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jubbulpore, under Section 438, Criminal P.C. Mt. Rambai filed a complaint for defamation punishable under Section 500, I.P.C., against Chandra Kumari Devi on the allegation that certain letters written by the latter contained aspersions on her moral character. The case was filed as far back as February 1936 and it dragged on its weary length until 13th November 1938 when the accused intimated to the Court that the case had been compounded out of Court and that an order of acquittal should be recorded. At this stage the case took a different turn on the issue whether or not the case had been compromised out of Court. The accused alleged that the case had been compromised on 18th November 1938 and that an application in writing had been made to the Court for passing an order of acquittal. On that day an application in writing appears to have been brought before the Court for being filed but as there was some disagreement as to the person to whom the impugned documents were to be returned, the application was withdrawn by the complainant or somebody on her behalf and it was never again brought before the Court. A copy of it has been filed in the case. It runs as follows: The complainant and the accused abovenamed beg to submit that they have compromised the abovementioned case out of Court and without prejudice. The complainant prays that the accused be acquitted and the alleged defamatory letters be returned to the accused unconditionally.

(2.) IT professed to bear the signatures of Rambai, the complainant, and Rajendra Singh, pleader for the accused. The Magistrate recorded some evidence bearing on the compromise and gave his finding as follows: It is clear from the evidence on record that a compromise petition was brought before the Court, even though it was not actually filed in the Court. The statements of the complainant's pleader shows that the complainant had agreed to the compromise, but she resiled from it in Court by disagreeing with the clause about the return of document. The question is, even if the petition was not filed in Court, will it amount to a valid compromise and will the accused have to be acquitted on such a compromise petition, even though it is not filed in Court? It appears to me that unless a petition is filed in Court it cannot be said that a valid compromise was arrived at. Particularly, in this case the complainant resiled from the compromise before the application was filed in Court. Under these circumstances I do not think that it can be accepted that the parties had arrived at a compromise before coming to the Court. There remains a doubt whether a compromise was really arrived at outside the Court or not. In such doubtful circumstances, I do not think that it will be fair to accept the fact that the case was compounded.

(3.) IN Kumaraswami Chetty v. Kuppuswami Chatty (1919) 6 AIR Mad 879 it was held that even when an offence mentioned in para. 1 of Section 345, Criminal P.C., is compounded before any complaint is filed in respect thereof, it has the effect of an acquittal so as to bar the trial of the offence. In Emperor v. Jhangtoo (1930) 17 AIR All 109 a document similar to the one in the present case was filed in Court and it was pointed out that the simple question for the Magistrate was to find whether or not the parties signed the document and understood its contents. If it is proved that the parties signed the document and understood its contents it is incompetent for any party to it to withdraw from it. Since the compromise has the immediate effect of acquittal so as to deprive the Magistrate of his jurisdiction to try the case, the subsequent with-drawal from it by any party can neither affect the acquittal nor revive the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to proceed with the case.