HEM CHANDRA DUTTA Vs. GIRINDRA CHANDRA CHAUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why the proceedings against the petiticnee should not be quashed, or why a farther inquiry should not be made into the petition of compromise.

(2.) It appears that the opposite party, who is a Pleader of the Thakurgaon Munsif Court in the Dinajpur District, brought a case for defamation against the petitioner, who is a Muktear s clerk. The parties, however, came to an amicable settlement and a petition of compromise was filed in the case in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate before whom the case was pending. The petitioner denied that he had defamed the opposite party and said that, if any such defamatory words had reached the ears of the opposite party, the same were absolutely false, that the petitioner was sorry for it and tendered his sincere apology to the opposite party, The opposite party stated in the same petition that the accused having admitted that the defamatory words that he heard were false, and having expressed his regret at the simulation of the false remove and having apologized in the above mancer, he (the opposite party) did not wish to proceed further in the nature and he prayed that the case might be finally disposed of under the provisions of Section 345, Criminal Procedure Code. Tie petition was signed not only by the petit icier but also by the opposite party himself. It was engrossed by his (the opposite party s) clerk, Gopal Chunder Das.

(3.) After tie petition had been filed with the peshkar, the latter put it up before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Thereupon the Sub Divisional Magistrate sent for the opposite party, and there was tome talk between them as the result of which the Pleader put in another petition by which to withdraw from the compromise. That has been given effect to, and the case is being proceeded with against the petitioner.