Judgment 1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Darbhanga, under S. 438 of the Cr. P. C. which, for the sake of brevity will be referred to hereinafter as the Code, for quashing the order of the 28th April 1961, of the earned Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani refusing to give effect to the compromise filed in the case by the parties and to acquit also Larubati, the petitioner who was one of the three accused standing trial before him. 2. The facts are these: On the 22nd, of December, 1960, Kanaklal Sahu, the opposite party, filed a complaint against three persons, namely, Larubati, the petitioner; her husband Balat Mandar; and her husbands brother, Banelal Mandal, under sections 323, 324, 143 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Subdivisional Magistrate at Madhubani, on which cognizance was taken under Sections 323 and 324, Indian Penal Code, and the case was transferred, the same day, to the Judicial Magis trate of that place for disposal, who fixed 9-2-61 for appearance of the accused. On the same day, the petitioners husbands brother also filed a counter-complaint against the opposite party under Sections 379, 323 and 426, Indian Penal Code. We are, however, not concerned with the counter case, and, therefore, it is not necessary to say anything further about it. 3. In the present case, started on the complaint of the opposite party, on 8-2-61, a day earlier, a joint petition of compromise was filed on behalf of the complainant and all the three accused, but it was signed only by the complainant and the two male accused, as the petitioner had not come to the Court that day. Along with the joint petition of compromise another petition for permis sion of the Court to compound the offence under Sec tion 324, Indian Penal Code, was also filed. On 9th Feb ruary, 1961, the said compromise was accepted and permission to compound the offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, between the complainant and the two male accused, was granted and they were acquitted under Section 345(6) of the Code. 4. The learned Magistrate then fixed 17th February, 1961, for appearance of the petitioner, the only remaining accused, who was absent and who had not put her thumb mark on the compromise petition. 4. The learned Magistrate then fixed 17th February, 1961, for appearance of the petitioner, the only remaining accused, who was absent and who had not put her thumb mark on the compromise petition. The petitioner subse quently surrendered in court on 19th April 1961, and was later released on bail and 27-4-61 was fixed for evi dence. On 27th April, 1961, she filed a petition that she should be allowed to sign the compromise petition al ready filed. The learned Magistrate, however, on 28th April, 1961, did not allow the case to be compounded with the petitioner on the ground that "The complainant does not compound the case with the remaining accused (i.e. the petitioner) and prays for proceeding of the case." 5. Thereafter, the same day, the accusation under Sec tion 426, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner was then explained to her and on her pleading not guilty some prosecution witnesses were examined and later on the case was adjourned for further hearing. She then moved the learned Sessions Judge for quashing the impugned order of the learned Magistrate refusing to accept the compromise and to acquit her and the learned Sessions Judge has accordingly made the reference under considera tion. 6. Section 345 of the Code deals with compound ing of offences. A composition is an arrangement or settle ment of deferences between the injured party and the person against whom the complaint is made. The compound ing of an offence supposes an arrangement whereby the parties have settled their differences. The composition of an offence, therefore, obviously requires the co-opera tion of both the parties. A composition once effected cannot be withdrawn. It is entirely immaterial whether the terms of the compromise have been carried out or not, the sole question being whether there was a com position or not; a breach of the agreement might give rise to other remedies. 7. Sub-section (7) of Section 345 of the Code lays down that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section. Under sub-section (1) of Sec tion 345 of the Code an offence punishable under Sec tion 426, Indian Penal Code, may be compounded by the person to whom the loss or damage is caused. In such a case, the permission of the Court is not required. Under sub-section (1) of Sec tion 345 of the Code an offence punishable under Sec tion 426, Indian Penal Code, may be compounded by the person to whom the loss or damage is caused. In such a case, the permission of the Court is not required. Sub-sec tion (6) of Section 345 provides that the composition of an offence under Section 345 shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. 8. When, therefore, a petition of compromise is put in, the Magistrates sole remaining duty is to record a formal order of acquittal under sub-section (6) of Sec tion 345 and to set the accused at liberty, in such a case, the Magistrate is bound to acquit the accused and he acts illegally if he proceeds with the trial and convicts the accused, because, the composition of the offence has the effect of an acquittal. Since the compromise has the immediate effect of acquittal so as to deprive the Magis trate of his jurisdiction to try the case, the subsequent withdrawal from it by any party can neither affect the acquittal nor revive the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to proceed with the case. As a composition has the effect of an acquittal and not a discharge, it is a complete bar to the prosecution of the accused for the same offence. 9. But, in view of sub-section (6) of Section 345 of the Code, where there are several accused persons the composition of an offence, with one of them has not the effect of acquittal of all the accused persons, but only the particular accused with whom the composition took place. This is now made clear by the words "with whom the offence has been compounded" newly added in sub-section (6) of Section 345 of the Code by Act 8 of 1923. 10. The above, in my opinion, is the true scope and effect of sub-section (6) of Section 345 of the Code. 11. Tested in the light of the above crucial test, the single question for determination, therefore, in the instant case, is, was the offence against the petitioner under Section 426 Indian Penal Code compounded with her? In other words, did the composition, here, take place with the petitioner also? 12. 11. Tested in the light of the above crucial test, the single question for determination, therefore, in the instant case, is, was the offence against the petitioner under Section 426 Indian Penal Code compounded with her? In other words, did the composition, here, take place with the petitioner also? 12. The petition of compromise, filed on 8-2-61, signed by the complainant and the two male accused is in Hindi and its official English translation is in these terms : "In the above case a compromise has been arrived at between the parties at the intervention of the Panches and well wishers. Now the parties do not want to take further step in their case. It is prayed that the case may be dismissed in terms of the compromise. In corroboration thereof the signatures and thumb marks of the parties and the signatures of the Mukhtars of the parties are affixed at the foot of this petition. Accused, the wife of Bilat Mandal also, who has not come to Court today, has accepted and approved this petition of compromise. Be it noted that in counter-case also Bane Lal Mandal - complainant against Kanak Lal Sahu and others - accus ed, which is pending in your honours Court, a compro mise is separately filed." 13. It is plain from the terms of the compromise, reproduced above in extenso, that the whole case had been compromised and that the compromise was on be half of the petitioner also and that is the reason why a prayer was made therein that the "case" be dismissed in terms of the compromise. In express terms it is stated in the compromise petition that the petitioner, who had not come to Court that day, had accepted and approved the petition of compromise. It is manifest there fore, that the complainant opposite party compounded with the petitioner as well. The offence under Section 426, Indian Penal Code, with which the petitioner was charged, was compoundable and for this no permission of the Court was required. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that as the counter-case against the opposite party was also compromised and he was acquitted, he after obtaining his acquittal, had now turned round and was pressing for the trial of the remaining accused, the petitioner. 14. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that as the counter-case against the opposite party was also compromised and he was acquitted, he after obtaining his acquittal, had now turned round and was pressing for the trial of the remaining accused, the petitioner. 14. The compromise petition, here, specifically men tioned that as a compromise had been arrived at the parties did not want to take any further step in their case. It is reasonably clear, therefore, as also rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge, that by the compromise the entire case against all the three accused had been compounded, and, as such, the offence under Section 426, Indian Penal Code, having been compounded by the complainant with the petitioner also, she could not be tried thereafter for that offence. The complainant had no right to withdraw from the compromise and ask the Court to proceed with the case against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate was bound to accept the com promise in respect of the petitioner and to acquit her also under sub-section (6) of Section 345 of the Code. 15. It was, however, argued by Mr. Saileshwar De, who appeared for the complainant-opposite party, that the petitioner Larubati, should be asked to put her signature on the compromise petition because it does not bear her thumb mark or signature as she had not come to Court on the day the compromise was filed in Court. I find that such a prayer was made by Larubati also on 27-4-61 when she filed a petition and sought the permission of the Court to sign the compromise petition of the 8th February, 1961, but her prayer was not accepted. On my finding, however, that the compromise was on her behalf also, because she accepted the said compromise, it is no longer necessary for her to sign or put her thumb mark on it. The compromise will be deemed to be also on behalf of the petitioner. It is, therefore, not at all neces sary now to allow the prayer of Mr. De. 16. The result, therefore, is that the reference is accepted and the order No. 11, dated the 28th April, 1961, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted under Section 345 (6) of the Code, and, accordingly, the proceeding against her is quashed. Reference accepted