Skip to content


Yenduri Radhakrishnamurthy and ors. Vs. G. Mahalatchayya and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. Case No. 99 of 1957 and Criminal Revn. Petn. No. 84 of 1957
Judge
Reported inAIR1959AP50; 1959CriLJ26
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 203, 242, 251 and 435; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 325
AppellantYenduri Radhakrishnamurthy and ors.
RespondentG. Mahalatchayya and anr.
Appellant AdvocateB. Bheemaraju, Adv.;Public Prosecutor
Respondent AdvocateT. Laxmaiah and ;J. Venugopal Rao, Advs.
Excerpt:
criminal - warrant case - sections 251, 203 and 435 of criminal procedure code, 1898 - allegation of dislocation of tooth on account of violence - allegation disclosed offence under section 325 - magistrate followed summons procedure in dealing with case - enquiry under section 325 can only be done as warrant case - case sent back to magistrate with direction to inquire into case afresh treating it as warrant case. - .....section 325 also.it is rather a specious argument, which deserves no consideration, the additional district magistrate took the view that this was a case of implied dismissal of the case under section 203, crimi-nal p. c., and he thought that he had jurisdiction to deal with the matter and directed as indicated above without giving any directions as to what procedure the magistrate should follow in the matter. this is very unsatisfactory; in the first place, there is no dismissal of a complaint and when the complaint was taken on file and dealt with there is no question of section 203 coming into operation. an implied order of dismissal is unknown to the code of criminal procedure. the additional district magistrate had, therefore, no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition......
Judgment:
ORDER

Sanjeeva Rao Naidu, J.

1. This is a revision petition preferred against the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Krishna, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 24 of 1956 by which he directed as follows:

'The implied order of dismissal is set aside and the case is transferred to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate Vijayawada Taluk for fresh inquiry and disposal according to law. The petition is allowed.'

2. In this case, the complainant filed a com-plaint making various allegations therein under Sections 323, 325, 447 and 34, I. P. C. In that complaint there is an allegation that the first blow which the 2nd accused dealt on the left cheek of the complainant resulted in one of her teeth dropping down. This allegation 'prima facie' implies that the tooth dropped down having been dislodged out of its position-under the impact of the blow given.

Since there is an allegation of dislocation of the tooth on account of the violence employed or criminal force used, the allegation would 'prima facie' be regarded as disclosing the offence under Section 325, I. P. C. This may be the reason why the Magistrate at that time took the complaint on file without any amendment of the sections on which the complaint was based.

3. Vehement arguments were advanced before the succeeding Stationary Sub-Magistrate that the previous Magistrate intended to take it on file under Section 325 also and therefore the summons procedure followed by the Magistrate in dealing with the case was wrong and without jurisdiction. The Magistrate curiously enough allowed himself to be influenced by certain questions, which had been put under Section 242, Criminal P. C., at the time of examination of the accused and from the omission therefrom of a question relating to the tooth concluded that it was not the intention of the Magistrate, who originally took it on file to take it under Section 325 also.

It is rather a specious argument, which deserves no consideration, The Additional District Magistrate took the view that this was a case of implied dismissal of the case under Section 203, Crimi-nal P. C., and he thought that he had jurisdiction to deal with the matter and directed as indicated above without giving any directions as to what procedure the Magistrate should follow in the matter. This is very unsatisfactory; in the first place, there is no dismissal of a complaint and when the complaint was taken on file and dealt with there is no question of Section 203 coming into operation. An implied order of dismissal is unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Additional District Magistrate had, therefore, no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition. Accordingly, the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate in tills case is quashed.

4. The only other point that arises for consideration is, what directions the High Court has now to give to the Magistrate in the disposal of the case in question. Since the matter has come to the notice of this Court, it is but right that proper directions should be given as to the disposal of the case. Whether the allegation in regard to the dropping down of the tooth was true or false, cor-rect or incorrect, is a. matter of evidence and a conclusion has to be reached only after taking the evidence in the case.

This is not the stage when any decision cant be made. The Magistrate has, therefore, neces-sarily to inquire into the matter. If an inquiry should be made under Section 325, it can only be done as a warrant case and not as a summon case.

5. The case is, therefore, sent back to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Vijayawada with thedirection that he should proceed to inquire into theCase afresh treating it as a warrant case.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //