1. Two Rules come before us on behalf of Adhar Chandra Dey,one to show cause why the sentence passed upon him should not be reduced andthe other on behalf of the same man in the capacity of complainant to showcause why the order of dismissal of his case should not be set aside and afurther enquiry ordered. Upon the parties coming before us and stating thatthey have compromised the matter out of Court, we can give effect to thiscompromise, as far as we can, by reducing the sentence to a mere nominal fineof one rupee and directing that no further enquiry be made into thecounter-charge. The parties certainly have no locus standi to ask us sittinghere neither as a Court of Original Jurisdiction nor as a Court of Appeal totreat the compromise which they have made of their own free will as one comingunder sec. 345, Cr. P. C. No stigma can possibly attach to the Petitioner onaccount of this petty fine for an equally petty assault. The Rule 490 is madeabsolute in the terms we have indicated, and the Rule 491 is discharged.

.

Adhar Chandra Dey vs.Subodh Chandra Ghosh (23.04.1914 -CALHC)