SURAVI MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against the order of Sri. B.K. Roy Choudhury, Magistrate, First Glass, Jangipur, dated 22nd April, 1964, whereby a warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner Suravi Mukherji for her failure to attend court in connection with a case under Sections 354, 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the petition of the complainant under Section 345(1) Cr. P. Code compounding the offence under Section 323 alleged to have been committed by her was rejected. It appears that a revisional application filed before the learned Sessions Judge against the said order was rejected by Sri L.C. Sen, Additional Sessions Judge of Murshidabad on 30-5-64.

(2.) The case is a very simple one, but a point of law is involved in this case, on which no decision of this Court has been shown by the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties. Briefly the complainant Pratima Banerji's case is that she brought a case against her brother-in-law Pronab Kumar Banerjee, the present petitioner Sm. Suravi Mukherjee and one Habul Chandra Das to answer charges under Sections 354, 379 and 323, Indian Penal Code. It may be mentioned here that against the petitioner Sm. Suravi Mukharjee only a case under Section 323, Indian Penal Code was made out. On the 15th April, 1964 Protima Banerjee stated before the learned Magistrate by a Petition duly signed by her and her pleader that the case was compromised and all the accused persons were to be released. This was put up for consideration before (sic) the next hearing date, namely, the 22nd April, 1964 which was fix ed for hearing of the case. The Magistrate rejected the composition petition on the ground that offences under Sections 379 and 354, Indian Penal Code were not compoundable. In so far as the case under Section 323 of the Code against the petitioner Sm. Suravi Mukharjee was concerned, the learned Magistrate took the view that she being absent on that day, warrant of arrest should be issued against her as the complainant stated before him that the terms of compromise had not yet materialised. It will appear from the order of the learned Magistrate that a submission was made to him on behalf of the accused Sm. Suravi Mukharjee that she was under the impression that the matter had been compromised and, therefore, she thought fit not to appear before the court on the date fixed. Such a submission by the petitioner was, however, negatived.

(3.) As regards the offences against Pronob Banerjee and Habal Chandra Das, I am of opinion that the petition of compromise will not be operative as they were charged with non-compound-able offences. So the case against Pronob Banerjee and Habal Chandra Das will respectively be proceeded with under Sections 354 and 379, Indian Penal Code.