K. I. SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short the Codet) for quashing the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandsaur in Criminal Case No. 264 of 1984 whereby he has required the petitioners to remain present in court. ( 2 ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to the application are these. The petitioners along with their coaccused Pannalal were facing trial in the aforesaid criminal case under sections 325/ 34 Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandsaur. ( 3 ) ON 21. 7. 19and7 the application filed by Ram Singh, the victim of the offence for permission to compound the offence was allowed, ( 4 ) WHEN later the same day a compromise petition signed by the said Ram Singh, the accused Pannalal and the counsel for the present petitioners who had been exempted from personal appearance, was filed, the learned Magistrate accepted the composition so far as the accused Pannalal who bad signed the petition is concurred and ordered that the absentee accused persons shall remain present on 26. 8. 1987 when the compromise petition so far as it relates to them shall be considered. ( 5 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as permission for compounding the offence had already been granted and an application duly signed by the victim of the offence to the effect that the offence has been compounded had been filed, the petitioners stand acquitted and the order of the learned Magistrate requiring them to remain present in the Court is unwarranted. In support of this submission reliance has been placed on the decision in S. Mukherjees case. ( 6 ) THE point for consideration is whether the application deserves to be allowed. ( 7 ) UNDER section 320 (2) of the Code the right to compound the offence under section 325 Indian Penal Code, inheres in the person to whom hurt is caused. It is only by way of abundant caution that the court might insist on a bilateral document evidencing composition. ( 7 ) UNDER section 320 (2) of the Code the right to compound the offence under section 325 Indian Penal Code, inheres in the person to whom hurt is caused. It is only by way of abundant caution that the court might insist on a bilateral document evidencing composition. The legal position is that even an unilateral petition submitted by the victim of the offence is operative towards composition of the offence and as soon as the offence is compounded by the victim with the accused, it operates as an acquittal even without a formal order acquitting the accused person. In the instant case, the counsel for the petitioners admits the fact of composition. ( 8 ) THERE is nothing to indicate that the compromise in question was in any way invalid. It is another matter that a compromise petition may subsequently be challenged in an appropriate civil proceeding as appears from the facts stated in the decision in Bhowanipur Banking Corporation Ltds. case2. ( 9 ) ON the facts and in the circumstances of the present case it has to be held that the petitioner stands acquitted of the offence under sections 325/34 Indian Penal Code and the order requiring their presence is illegal and deserves to be set aside. ( 10 ) IN the result, the application is allowed and the impugned order requiring the petitioners to be present in Court is set aside. .