Skip to content


Nagu thevar and ors. Vs. Periakaruppa thevan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. Case No. 1145 of 1950 and Cri. Revn. Petn. No. 1074 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Mad184; (1952)2MLJ117
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 203
AppellantNagu thevar and ors.
RespondentPeriakaruppa thevan
Appellant AdvocateT.S. Vaidyanatha Iyer, Adv.;Public Prosecutor
Respondent AdvocateC.K. Venkatanarsimham, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Excerpt:
- - in a case like this. so the learned sessions judge's order was perfectly correct......be paid later on, but finally not paid. this postponement of payment in this case relates to the payment promised at a panchayat subsequent to the alleged cheating. so the witnesses regarding the alleged cheating ought to have been heard, and it was not a case for dismissal under section 203, cr. p.c. as a civil matter. the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the rulings in -- 'krishna pillai and others', 43 mlj 535, and in -- 'crl. r. c. no. 925 of 1946. i have looked into them: they will not apply to a dismissal of a case under section 203, cr. p. c. in a case like this. certainly where an alleged cheating by a representation as in this complaint, has not been properly understood and gone into by the trial magistrate, the interests of justice and public interests require.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.

This is certainly not a case for my interfering in revision with the learned Sessions Judge's order setting aside the order of dismissal by the Magistrate. Here a deceit was alleged by the complainant, namely, that he was asked by the accused to admit payment of the consideration before the Sub-Registrar on a promise to pay the consideration at once as soon as the document was registered and that he registered it and made that statement and parted with valuable properties which he would not have done but for such deceit. It is not a mere case where the consideration was promised to be paid later on, but finally not paid. This postponement of payment in this case relates to the payment promised at a panchayat subsequent to the alleged cheating. So the witnesses regarding the alleged cheating ought to have been heard, and it was not a case for dismissal under Section 203, Cr. P.C. as a civil matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the rulings in -- 'Krishna Pillai and others', 43 MLJ 535, and in -- 'Crl. R. C. No. 925 of 1946. I have looked into them: They will not apply to a dismissal of a case under Section 203, Cr. P. C. in a case like this. Certainly where an alleged cheating by a representation as in this complaint, has not been properly understood and gone into by the trial Magistrate, the interests of justice and public interests require that it be gone into. So the learned Sessions Judge's order was perfectly correct. This petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.


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