AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this case the complainant by his pleader presented a Razinama to the Court which stated that the offence charged which is one of hurt had been compounded.
The Court, however, declined to accept the Razinama apparently because it intended to institute an inquiry as to whether the charge was not frivolous or vexatious. That inquiry could only be instituted u/s 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code and it could only be instituted for the purpose of deciding whether compensation should be paid to the accused person.
Proceedings under that section seem to us to be inapplicable in a case where the accused person has himself by agreement with the prosecutor arrived at a settlement and been a party to the compounding of the offence. We, therefore, think that the Magistrate ought to have accepted the Razinama, as the parties were entitled u/s 345 to compound the offence unconditionally, and we therefore direct that the compounding of the offence be recorded by the Magistrate and the case thus disposed of.