Skip to content


Chaturbhuj Vs. Naharkhan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Ref. No. 78 of 1956
Judge
Reported inAIR1958MP28; 1958CriLJ50
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 204, 204(1A) and 204(1B); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Amendment) Act, 1955
AppellantChaturbhuj
RespondentNaharkhan
Respondent AdvocateJ.D. Patel, Dy. Govt. Adv.
DispositionReference accepted
Excerpt:
- .....j.1. a complaint was filed by one naharkhan son of ghasikhan musalman of babrecha against the accused chaturbhuj son of kishanji of the same place under section 211, i. p. c. the magistrate examined the complainant but without complying with the mandatory provisions of section 204(1-a)and (1-b). he directed issue of process against the accused. accused preferred revision petition in the court of the sessions judge, ratlam. the revision petition was heard by the additional sessions judge, ratlam. according to the learned additional sessions judge it was not competent for the magistrate to issue process without complying with the mandatory provisions in section 204 (1-a) and (1-b). he, therefore, has made this reference.2. a petition has been filed in this court purporting to have.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Nevaskar, J.

1. A complaint was filed by one Naharkhan son of Ghasikhan Musalman of Babrecha against the accused Chaturbhuj son of Kishanji of the same place under Section 211, I. P. C. The Magistrate examined the complainant but without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 204(1-A)and (1-B). He directed issue of process against the accused. Accused preferred revision petition in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ratlam. The revision petition was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge it was not competent for the Magistrate to issue process without complying with the mandatory provisions in Section 204 (1-A) and (1-B). He, therefore, has made this reference.

2. A petition has been filed in this Court purporting to have been signed by the accused Chaturbhuj and the complainant Naharkhan stating that they had compromised the matter out of Court and that for that reason, the proceeding may be dismissed. The complaint in the present case relates to an offence under Section 211, I. P. C., which is not a compoundable offence. Under these circumstances I cannot take notice of this petition. Neither Chaturbhuj nor Naharkhan are present.

3. Having regard to the wordings of Section 204, Clauses (1-A) and (1-B), it seems to me that filing of the list of prosecution witnesses is essential unless the complainant is the only witness in the case. It further appears that along with the summons or warrant issued under Sub-section (1), copy of the complaint ought to be sent to the accused. It appears from the first proceeding dated 14-3-1956, that the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind to the change in the new procedure brought about by the introduction of Sub-sections (1-A) and (1-B) in Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He seems to have proceeded according to the old unamended provisions. This was not correct. The reference, is therefore, accepted. The Magistrate shall comply with provisions of Section 204(1-A) and (1-B) after duly applying his mind to the same and then shall proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law.


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