JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Balasore recommending the quashing of an order dated 26-11-1971 passed in a complainant case by the trying Magistrate in terms whereof a warrant has been issued against the complainant who is the petitioner in this proceeding. 2. The short facts necessary for appreciating the points raised in this case may now he stated. On the complaint made by the petitioner against the accused persons cognizance was taken and charge was framed after examining five prosecution witnesses for offences under section 143, 323 and 504, Indian Penal Code. After the prosecution was closed the parties compromised. As the offences under section 323 and 504, Indian Penal Code were compoundable the composition was accepted and the accused persons were acquitted of those two offences. The case proceeded for the offence under section 143, Indian Penal Code and the complainant undertook to produce the prosecution witnesses for cross-examination. He failed to do so and made an application to the Court saying that the witnesses had been won over and were not coming. Ultimately the learned Magistrate ordered issue of a warrant against the complainant as he failed to appear and take steps. 3. Having hard the learned counsel for the parties I have no doubt in my mind that the direction of the learned magistrate to issue a warrant against the complainant in the facts and circumstances was wholly misconceived. There is no provision in law in terms whereof such a warrant could have been issued. I would, for the reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, in that behalf, vacate the order of the learned Magistrate. 4. The learned Sessions Judge has indicated that the witnesses should be summoned to appear in Court for cross-examination at the instance of the defence. As it appears there has really been a compromise. In fact on the basis of the composition acquittal for the other two offences has already been ordered. The witnesses in this case, even if they are brought before the Court, are likely not to support the prosecution any longer. In the circumstances, I do not think any useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution. 5. In fact on the basis of the composition acquittal for the other two offences has already been ordered. The witnesses in this case, even if they are brought before the Court, are likely not to support the prosecution any longer. In the circumstances, I do not think any useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution. 5. Charge having already been framed, the only way in which the case can close is by expunging the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on the basis that the witnesses have not been produced for cross-examination. Mr. Sinba appearing for the accused persons contends on the authority of a decision reported in Amulya Ranjan v. Monoranjan AIR 1956 Tripura 2, that the complainant having undertaken in Court for production of the prosecution witnesses for cross-examination and having omitted to do so it is open to the Court to expunge the evidence in chief and proceed on the basis as if there is no evidence to support the prosecution case. In the Tripura case reliance was placed upon a Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Sadek Mohammad Ahmad Hasan v. Jyotish Chandraa AIR 1948 Cal. 83. In the Calcutta decision no distinction was drawn while interpreting section 256, Criminal Procedure Code on the basis of the undertaking of the complainant to cause production of witnesses for cross-examination and such a distinction has been drawn in the Tripura Case. The learned Government Advocate contended that the view taken in the Tripura decision was not in accordance with law. As far as I know, Courts have always taken a different view than what has been indicated in the Tripura decision. I would, therefore, not accept the decision cited by Mr. Sinha to hold that the evidence in chief can be expugned without taking steps for production of the witnesses for cross-examination. 6. In the particular case, however, since the compromise is bonafide and has already been acted upon, I cannot lose sight of the fact that there would really be no evidence forthcoming to support the prosecution and no useful purpose would be served in continuing the prosecution. Keeping that aspect in view I thick in the interests of justice to direct that the prosecution may not continue further. I would accordingly quash the charge framed under section 143, Indian Penal Code. Keeping that aspect in view I thick in the interests of justice to direct that the prosecution may not continue further. I would accordingly quash the charge framed under section 143, Indian Penal Code. In view of the fact that two of the offences which were being tried in I.C.C. 208 of 1970 have already been compounded and the accused persons have been acquitted and since I quash the charge framed under section 143, Indian Penal Code the criminal case shall ceased to proceed. Final Result : Allowed