Full Judgment
Kunhi Raman, C.J.
1. The second accused is the petitioner. The complainant has started criminal proceedings against five accuser persons and in the course of the hearing it is alleged that a petition was presented to the Magistrate stating that the offence alleged to have been committed by accused 1 and 2 have been compounded and that the complainant does not wish to proceed against the remaining accused. By a curious process of reasoning, the Court below has arrived at the conclusion that since the petition presented was not signed by all the accused persons, he could not take notice of the fact that so far as the second accused was concerned the offence has been compounded. This is erroneous in law. In similar circumstances, in the case reported in Thirumalai Naicken v. Elumalai 1938 Mad. W.N. 232 (1) the right of the complainant who had charged a number of accused persons with having committed compound able offences to enter into a compromise with one of the accused is recognized. In the present case it is stated that distinct acts were alleged to have been done by each one of the accused persons for which the complainant wanted to proceed against them. If the offence so far as the second accused is concerned has been rapidly compounded, there is nothing to prevent the Magistrate from taking notice of that fact and passing the necessary order on such compromise. The order made by the Magistrate is set aside and the matter remitted for disposal according to law in the light of these observations.