Newsam, J
[1] The order of the District Magistrate Under Section 436, Criminal P.C. is not correct in form or in substance. He cannot compel a Magistrate to take cognizance of a complaint. He has said that the complaint "should be restored to file", but as it was dismissed Under Section 203 it never was on the file. The proper order to have made was to direct further inquiry into the case, which does not necessarily imply that process should be issued to the person against whom the complaint was directed. All that it is necessary to say is that the Magistrate before whom the case now is should hold an inquiry Under Section 202, Criminal P.C. and proceed according to law, with unfettered discretion to dismiss the complaint once more if he thinks it proper to do so.
The criminal revision petition is allowed.
In Re v.
In Re v.
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
Criminal Revision No. 377 Of 1937 Criminal Revision No. 346 Of 1937) | 23-09-1937
Advocate List
- For the Petitioners Messrs. K.S. Jayarama Ayyar, G. Gopalaswami, Advocates. For the Crown The Public Prosecutor.
Bench
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEWSAM
Eq Citations
- (1937) 2 MLJ 734
- AIR 1938 MAD 172
- LQ/MadHC/1937/273
Head Note
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 436 and 203 — Revision petition allowed — Proper order to have been made by District Magistrate was to direct further inquiry into the case, which does not necessarily imply that process should be issued to the person against whom the complaint was directed — Magistrate before whom the case now is should hold an inquiry Under S. 202, Criminal P.C. and proceed according to law, with unfettered discretion to dismiss the complaint once more if he thinks proper to do so
