Skip to content


Ramu Alias Langar Through Bhairon Vs. Murli Das - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1943All19
AppellantRamu Alias Langar Through Bhairon
RespondentMurli Das
Excerpt:
.....appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - if the person does not claim the property to be his private property, then he should either show cause why the order of the magistrate was unreasonable or he should ask the magistrate to appoint a jury, but it is surely open to the magistrate at any stage for good reasons shown to refuse to take any further action in the matter......has been issued may allege that the property with respect to which there is a dispute is his own private property and if the magistrate thinks that there is any evidence in support of this contention, he must stay the proceedings under section 139-a. if the person does not claim the property to be his private property, then he should either show cause why the order of the magistrate was unreasonable or he should ask the magistrate to appoint a jury, but it is surely open to the magistrate at any stage for good reasons shown to refuse to take any further action in the matter. the informant has no rights in these proceedings. if he wishes to obtain any redress in his personal capacity he can go to a civil court. this prevalent idea that criminal cases and cases under the criminal.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Allsop, J.

1. This reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Benares has been made under a misapprehension of the nature of proceedings under Section 133, Criminal P. C. Those proceedings are not intended to settle private dispute between two members of the public. They are not originated by the filing of complaint or something of that kind. Any person naturally can give a Magistrate information of the existence of any state of affairs, but when the Magistrate acts on that information, he is acting suo motu. The person who gives the information has no rights in the matter and is not a person who may be described as a party to the proceedings. If the Magistrate issues a preliminary order under Section 133 for the removal of an obstruction or something of that kind, the question which arises is one between the Magistrate on the one side on behalf of the public at large and the person, on the other, to whom notice has been issued. The person to whom notice has been issued may allege that the property with respect to which there is a dispute is his own private property and if the Magistrate thinks that there is any evidence in support of this contention, he must stay the proceedings under Section 139-A. If the person does not claim the property to be his private property, then he should either show cause why the order of the Magistrate was unreasonable or he should ask the Magistrate to appoint a jury, but it is surely open to the Magistrate at any stage for good reasons shown to refuse to take any further action in the matter. The informant has no rights in these proceedings. If he wishes to obtain any redress in his personal capacity he can go to a civil Court. This prevalent idea that criminal cases and cases under the Criminal Procedure Code are contests between private persons gives rise to a great waste of time and general confusion. There is no force in this reference and I reject it. Let the papers be returned to the Court below.


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