Skip to content


Jasua and ors. Vs. Emperor Through Jaldhari - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All332; 71Ind.Cas.696
AppellantJasua and ors.
RespondentEmperor Through Jaldhari
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 107 - notice of proceedings cancelled owing to complainant's absence--discharge--magistrate's authority to re-institute enquiry--institution of second case after discharge, whether barred. - .....be bound over to keep the peace.3. the accused applied to the district magistrate saying that no fresh proceedings could be instituted against them after the order of the magistrate cancelling the notice which was issued in the first instance. it seems and was argued in the court below that this order of cancellation amounted to an order of acquittal which was a bar to fresh proceedings. the learned district magistrate, however, was right in holding that in such cases there is no acquittal but merely a discharge which does not prevent another case being instituted.4. i do not agree, however, with the magistrate that the first court had any authority in law to re-institute an enquiry. a court which has passed an order of discharge cannot re-open the same case, but, as i have said, there.....
Judgment:

Lindsay, J.

1. I have heard the learned Counsel in support of this application in revision and I am of opinion that it cannot succeed. It appears that the applicants were the accused in a case which was being prosecuted under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On one of the dates which was fixed for the hearing of the case the complainant was absent and the Magistrate recorded an order discharging the notice which had been issued upon the accused persons to show cause.

2. The next day the complainant put in a fresh application to the Magistrate. The complainant's statement was recorded by the Magistrate and thereafter notice was issued to the accused persons calling upon them to show cause why they should not be bound over to keep the peace.

3. The accused applied to the District Magistrate saying that no fresh proceedings could be instituted against them after the order of the Magistrate cancelling the notice which was issued in the first instance. It seems and was argued in the Court below that this order of cancellation amounted to an order of acquittal which was a bar to fresh proceedings. The learned District Magistrate, however, was right in holding that in such cases there is no acquittal but merely a discharge which does not prevent another case being instituted.

4. I do not agree, however, with the Magistrate that the First Court had any authority in law to re-institute an enquiry. A Court which has passed an order of discharge cannot re-open the same case, but, as I have said, there is no bar to a second case being instituted, the order of discharge does not stand in the way of such proceedings being taken What has really happened in this case is that on the day after the notices were cancelled and the accused were discharged the complainant filed a fresh complaint upon which the Deputy Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant and then passed orders for process to issue to the accused. The case is one in which a second complaint has been instituted and there was no bar to that being entertained. This is the only matter which has been argued before me. On the face of them, the proceedings of the Deputy Magistrate do not appear to me in any way irregular and I dismiss the application accordingly.


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