Sunder Sahu vs Bhagoo Marik and Another

This reference arises out of a suit based upon a rohka or hand-note dated 21st January 1919 executed by the defendant. The defendant along with another was accused in a criminal case by the plaintiff-complainant for beating and rescuing some cattle. The case was compromised upon the defendant agreeing to pay Rs. 16-2-0 for costs to the plaintiff. In lieu of the cash payment the defendant executed the rokka in question. The hand note clearly states that the laid sum of Rs. 16-2-0 was due to the plaintiff-complainant on account of the costs of the criminal case and that it was payable to the plaintiff by the defendant. There is nothing against public policy to prevent the enforcement of the contract in question between the parties. If the case was compoundable, the injured party was entitled to charge from the accused cost or compensation in order to give his assent to the compromise. As to whether the compromise should or should not have been allowed is not within the scope of the Civil Court to determine. This is regulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure and was within the competency of the Criminal Court before which the case was pending.

We, therefore, answer the reference as above and direst that the answer be now transmitted to the Court concerned.