Judgment. 1. This appeal is filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the accused in C.C. No. 168 of 1978, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Srikakulam. 2. The complainant is the owner of a sweet meat shop. He belongs to Fisherman community. He is a resident of Lakshminarasupet Village. A rumour was set afloat in the Village by one Ammanna that the complainant was practising black-magic. The predominant community in the Village is ‘Golla’ community. The Village Officers belong to that community. A-1, a midwife, also belongs to that community. She remarked that unless the complainant had practised black magic he would not have been unnecessarily accused. The complainant ceased inviting her for attending to the deliveries in his house. Consequently, it is stated that she bore grudge against him. While so, on 21st August, 1978, A-1 went to Amadalavalasa and while returning in a bus, she started behaving curiously and saying that she was under the spell of black-magic practised by the complainant. It Was witnessed by one Haragopalam and others and they informed the complainant about it. It appears that A-1 went home and started behaving in the same manner at her house as if she was still under the spell of black-magic. The Village Munsif sent word to the complainant to see him immediately at his house, as there was a complaint to him by A-1. A-1 also went there and accused the complainant that he had practised black-magic upon her. The complainant denied it. He came to know that A-2 had also confirmed that the complainant was practising black-magic. On the next day morning A-2 to A-5. A-7 and A-8 came along with A-6 to the house of the complainant. A-6 was carrying a pot of fire with turmeric vermillion, cooked rice, leaves of drumstick plant and gingelly oil cake mixed with water. A-2 started giving instructions to A-3 to A-8. A-3 to A-5, A-7 and A-8 were armed with sticks. They forcibly entered into the front portion of the house of the complainant and A-6 placed the mud pot in the porch, abusing the complainant in vulgar language. The complainant and his family members resisted. But A-3 to A-5 A-7 and A-8 threatened to beat them with sticks if they interfered. Out of fear the complainant and his family members could not do anything. The complainant and his family members resisted. But A-3 to A-5 A-7 and A-8 threatened to beat them with sticks if they interfered. Out of fear the complainant and his family members could not do anything. The accused started canvassing in the village not to have any contact with the family of the complainant. Consequently his family was boycotted and he had also sustained loss of his business and reputation. Hence he filed the complaint. 3. The complaint was taken on file under sections 448 , 504 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code, against all the accused. The plea of the accused was one of denial. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on two grounds: (i) There was a compromise between the complainant and the accused as evidenced by the compromise deed. Exhibit P-4, dated 21st September, 1978, in the presence of the Police Commandant and (ii) The evidence adduced by the complainant was not trustworthy. 4. In this appeal it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that though there was a compromise it was subsequently resiled by the accused and therefore it had no effect. Secondly, it was stated that in any event the offence under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable and, therefore, the accused could not be acquitted for that offence. Thirdly, it was contended that the learned Magistrate did not properly discuss and appreciate the evidence. 5. I have seen the documents Exhibits P-2 to P-4. Exhibit P-3 is a statement of the complainant (P.W. 1) recorded by the Police Commandant who mediated between both the parties. Exhibit P-4 is the compromise deed, dated 21st September, 1978, entered into by both the parties in the presence of the Police Commandant. In that document they had stated that they had agreed to withdraw the cases filed against each other. Exhibit P-2 is the enquiry report of the Police Commandant, dated 29th August, 1978, sent to the Station House Officer, stating that both the groups had settled their differences and agreed to live amicably and to that effect they had also executed a compromise deed and handed it over to him and from that day onwards there was no trouble in the village and the complainant was living in the village without any fear or danger to himself or his property. 6. 6. In view of these documents it is evident that both the parties have compromised the matter and agreed to withdraw the cases filed against each other. It is not disputed that the offences under sections 448 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code are compoundable at the instance of the complainant under section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of the compromise reached between the parties I have to hold that both the parties have compounded the offences. If so it has the effect of an acquittal of the accused under sub- section (8) of section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That sub- section provides that the composition of an offence under that section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. Since the compromise has the immediate effect of the acquittal, it deprives the Magistrate of his jurisdiction to try the case. If so 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. 7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the parties have subsequently resiled from the compromise. Even so, it will not make any difference for the acquittal of the accused. In Mahomed Kama Rowther v. Pattani Innayathalla Sahib,1 a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that a composition arrived at between the parties of a compoundable offence is complete as soon as it is made and it has the effect of an acquittal of the accused under the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of that offence though one of the parties later resiled from the compromise and no statement or petition recording the compromise is filed in the Court by the parties. To the same effect see Kumaraswami Chetty v. Kuppuswami Chetty2Murray and Mt. Rambal v. Mt. Chandra Kumari7 Therefore, the order of the Magistrate acquitting the accused is valid. 8. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the offence under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable and, therefore, the compromise between the parties had no effect with regard to that offence. The case of the prosecution is that the accused had first trespassed into the house of the complainant and then committed the offence of rioting. The case of the prosecution is that the accused had first trespassed into the house of the complainant and then committed the offence of rioting. When they are acquitted of the offence of trespass, then the question of convicting them for rioting does not arise. Apart from that, the learned Magistrate, on a consideration of the evidence was not prepared to believe the complainant's version. I cannot say that her conclusion is wrong. In these circumstances, I see no grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate and I dismiss the appeal. Criminal appeal dismissed.