Skip to content


A. Sambandam and anr. Vs. G. Natesan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. Case No. 428 of 1964 (Cri. Revn. Petn. No. 419 of 1964 and Cri M.P. No. 545 of 1964)
Judge
Reported inAIR1966Mad183; 1966CriLJ554; (1965)2MLJ380
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 497 and 498; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 199
AppellantA. Sambandam and anr.
RespondentG. Natesan
Excerpt:
- - it is not seriously contended that the circumstances which justify an agent to file a complaint have been satisfied in the present case......magistrate of mayuram granting permission to the power of attorney holder of the respondent to file a complaint against the petitioners under ss. 497 and 498, i.p.c. and (2) to quash the proceedings in c.c. 20 of 1964 taken on the complaint filed by the said power of attorney.(2) the objection raised in the first petition is that the power of attorney holder was not competent to file the complaint on behalf of the respondent natesan, the husband of the second petitioner's daughter, and the objection raised in the second petition is that, the incompetent institution of the complaint has made it a nullity and therefore the proceeding is liable to be quashed.(3) the learned first class magistrate apparently granted permission in this case to file the complaint without notice to the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

(1) These petitions have been filed by one Sambandam and Kalyani (1) against the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate of Mayuram granting permission to the Power of Attorney holder of the respondent to file a complaint against the petitioners under Ss. 497 and 498, I.P.C. and (2) to quash the proceedings in C.C. 20 of 1964 taken on the complaint filed by the said power of attorney.

(2) The objection raised in the first petition is that the power of attorney holder was not competent to file the complaint on behalf of the respondent Natesan, the husband of the second petitioner's daughter, and the objection raised in the second petition is that, the incompetent institution of the complaint has made it a nullity and therefore the proceeding is liable to be quashed.

(3) The learned First Class Magistrate apparently granted permission in this case to file the complaint without notice to the accused. The order is very cryptic and reads 'Permitted to file the complaint'. Under S. 199, Criminal P.C. no court shall take cognizance of an offence under Ss. 497 or 498, I.P.C. except upon a complaint made by the husband of the woman, or in his absence, made with the leave of the court by some person who had care of such woman on his behalf at the time when such offence was committed. It is not seriously contended that the circumstances which justify an agent to file a complaint have been satisfied in the present case. Natesan is stated to be in Malaya and the only reason given by him in the power of attorney is that because he is unable to proceed to India to file a complaint, he has authorised the power of attorney holder to file the complaint. Such a ground is not countenanced by S. 199, Cri.P.C. In the circumstances, I have to hold that the complaint filed by the agent Kuppuswami Padayachi is incompetent and, necessarily, the complaint filed by him has to be quashed.

(4) Both these petitions are accordingly allowed and the proceedings are quashed.

(5) Petitions allowed.


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