Judgment :- A few facts may be stated for the purpose of disposal of the above said criminal appeal and the petition. 2. One Indirani, wife of Dhanraj, who is the appellant in C.A. 112 of 1982, and one Krishnaveni, were working as Staff Nurses in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Cuddalore, during the relevant period. It would appear that there was a quarrel between the two women, and Indirani gave a report to the police against Krishnaveni alleging offences under S. 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, and under S. 323 of the Indian Penal Code. A case was registered and a charge sheet was filed in C.C. 261 of 1980 against the said Krishnaveni on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Cuddalore. Almost simultaneously, a complaint was laid by Krishnaveni to the police for an offence under sections 332 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, and a case was registered in C.C. 620 of 1980 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore and a charge sheet was filed. The learned Magistrate who tried the said case discharged Indirani as no evidence was disclosed against her. The case proceeded against her husband and ultimately he was convicted under S. 332 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. An appeal was preferred against the same before the learned Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. With reference to the other case filed by Indirani against Krishnaveni, the trial was pending and at that stage Indirani filed a petition in Cr.M.P. 2185 of 1981, to withdraw C.C. 261 of 1980 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Cuddalore, and transfer the same to any other court. The matter was heard by Mr. Justice Sathar Sayeed and by then, the parties had cooled down and they were in a mood to drop further proceedings in both the matters. Accordingly, both the parties, namely, Indirani and Krishnaveni, made a written endorsement before this court on 26-6-1981, stating that they are willingly compromising the matter between themselves and that all the proceedings could be terminated. In view of the endorsement, the appeal pending before the learned Sessions Judge, was withdrawn to this Court for disposal and numbered as C.A. No. 112 of 1982. 3. In view of the endorsement, the appeal pending before the learned Sessions Judge, was withdrawn to this Court for disposal and numbered as C.A. No. 112 of 1982. 3. Now, the only point that remains for consideration is what is the proper order to be passed in the criminal appeal and the petition. 4. A doubt was raised that the offence under the Protection of Civil Rights Act is not strictly a compoundable one. I have carefully considered this contention and heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. It is clear that the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 is a special Act and S. 16 of the same lays down that it overrides other laws. Now, the question is whether the conviction could be compounded in law. Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case and the circumstances set out supra, I am of opinion that this is a fit case for this court to interfere and record the settlement arrived at between the parties. My reasons are as follows - The Preamble to the Protection of Civil Rights Act reads that the Act was intended to punish the preaching of and practice of Untouchability, and for the enforcement of any disability arising therefrom. When the parties themselves have voluntarily and willingly come forward to settle their differences, I do not think there can be any legal impediment in permitting the same, since it is not contrary to the spirit of the Act. When the affected parties under the Protection of Civil Rights Act themselves come before this Court and are prepared to compound the offence, there is no reason why this Court should not accept the same, since, in my opinion, the Act itself will be better implemented if compounding of such offences is permitted. I have also taken into consideration the further fact that both the parties involved, namely, Krishnaveni and Indirani, are Staff Nurses employed in the Government Hospital, holding responsible posts, and both of them agree that further proceedings, against each other may be dropped. The alleged acts constituting the offence took place in August 1980 and it would appear that both parties have forgotten the incident totally as is clear from the endorsement made by the parties in person before this court. The alleged acts constituting the offence took place in August 1980 and it would appear that both parties have forgotten the incident totally as is clear from the endorsement made by the parties in person before this court. In these circumstances it will be but just and expedient to uphold the compromise and record the same. For all these reasons, I am of opinion that this is a fit case for interference by the High Court. Accordingly, the conviction of Dhanraj the appellant in Cr. Ap. No. 112 of 1982 under S. 332 I.P.C. is set aside, and the fine, if already paid will be refunded to the appellant in C.A. 112 of 1982. Cr. Ap. 112 of 1982 is allowed. Similarly Cr.M.P. 2185 of 1981 is also allowed and the prosecution in C.C. 261 of 1980 stands quashed.