ORDER The learned Sessions Judge at Panaji has made this reference to set aside the orders of the Magistrate at Diu by which he disallowed the application to record the compromise and convicted and sentenced the compromise and acquit those respondents of the offences of which they have been convicted. 2. The facts necessary to be mentioned for the disposal of this reference are these; Complaint for the offences under Section 323 and 504 read with Section 34 I.P.C. was filed against the respondents 1 to 3 herein by complainant, K. J. Parbat, in the First Class Magistrate's Court at Diu alleging that they on 5-7-1970 abused her in filthy language and injured her. On 5-8-1970 the parties, i.e. the complainant and respondents 1 to 3 herein, compromised and filed an application to dismiss the complaint. The learned Magistrate disallowed that application because the second respondent herein had stated that Rs. 550/- were paid to the complainant as compensation. He recorded the evidence of the complainant, framed charges against the respondents 1 to 3 herein and on their pleading guilty, convicted and sentenced them. Later on he thought that he was not right in disallowing the compromise and referred the matter to the Sessions Judge to take legal action. The Sessions Judge finding that the Magistrate was wrong in disallowing the compromise made this reference. 3. I perused the records and heard the arguments of the learned advocate appearing for the third respondent herein. No one is present on behalf of the complainant and the respondents 1, 2 and 4. The offences for which the complaint was filed were compoundable under Clause 1 of Section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code without the permission of the Court. Clause 6 of that Section is as follows :- "The composition of an offence under this Section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded." In view of the provisions of that Clause the Magistrate should have come to the conclusion that there was an automatic acquittal of the respondents 1 to 3 herein as soon as the compromise application was filed in the Court by the complainant. It the complainant received compensation and then compounded the offences it could not be considered illegal. Unfortunately the Magistrate without properly understanding the law disallowed the compromise petition and convicted the respondents 1 to 3 herein. It the complainant received compensation and then compounded the offences it could not be considered illegal. Unfortunately the Magistrate without properly understanding the law disallowed the compromise petition and convicted the respondents 1 to 3 herein. He had no jurisdiction to record evidence, frame charges and convict respondents 1 to 3 after the complainant submitted the compromise petition. I am supported in my view by the decisions in 'Suravi Mukherjee v. State, AIR 1965 Cal 469 and 'Mohammad Mansoor v. Hira Singh, AIR 1959 All 627 . 4. The reference is accepted. The order refusing to accept the compromise and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the respondents 1 to 3 herein are set aside. The compromise is allowed and the respondents 1 to 3 herein are acquitted of the offences of which they have been convicted by the learned Magistrate. Reference answered.