Skip to content


The Queen Vs. Yendava Chandramma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR7Mad189
AppellantThe Queen
RespondentYendava Chandramma
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, sections 202, 203, 476 - indian penal code, section 211--complaint dismissed--sanction to prosecute--preliminary inquiry into the truth of complaint. - - 1. the accused complained to the senior assistant magistrate of vizagapatam, on the 10th june last, that a woman and her paramour had killed her newly-born child and secretly disposed of the body. on the 21st july, the senior assistant magistrate examined the accused, and she then stated that her complaint was true and bona fide, that two witnesses saw the child killed, that the magistrate might cause the woman to be examined by a midwife, and that the paramour was the son of a rich man who prevented the villagers from speaking the truth......preliminary inquiry, as the offence was cognizable exclusively by the court of sessions. the third-class magistrate held the preliminary inquiry and committed the accused for trial to the sessions court, and the sessions judge refers the commitment to this court to be quashed on the ground that it is illegal. there was no application for sanction before the senior assistant magistrate on the 21st july last when he sanctioned the prosecution of the accused, and his order must, therefore, be taken to be a complaint made of his own motion. this being so, he ought to have sent the complaint for inquiry to a magistrate of the first class as required by section 476 of the code of criminal procedure. the commitment made by third-class magistrate of palkonda is made without jurisdiction and must.....
Judgment:

Muttusami Ayyar, J.

1. The accused complained to the Senior Assistant Magistrate of Vizagapatam, on the 10th June last, that a woman and her paramour had killed her newly-born child and secretly disposed of the body. The Magistrate referred the complaint to an Inspector of Police for inquiry and report. On the 25th June the Police Inspector reported, after inquiry, that the complaint was false and malicious. On the 21st July, the Senior Assistant Magistrate examined the accused, and she then stated that her complaint was true and bona fide, that two witnesses saw the child killed, that the Magistrate might cause the woman to be examined by a midwife, and that the paramour was the son of a rich man who prevented the villagers from speaking the truth. Thereupon, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without further inquiry and upon consideration of the result of the police investigation. He also made an order sanctioning the prosecution of the accused for an offence punishable under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code and directed the Sub-Magistrate of Palkonda, who was a Magistrate of the third class, to hold the preliminary inquiry, as the offence was cognizable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. The third-class Magistrate held the preliminary inquiry and committed the accused for trial to the Sessions Court, and the Sessions Judge refers the commitment to this Court to be quashed on the ground that it is illegal. There was no application for sanction before the Senior Assistant Magistrate on the 21st July last when he sanctioned the prosecution of the accused, and his order must, therefore, be taken to be a complaint made of his own motion. This being so, he ought to have sent the complaint for inquiry to a Magistrate of the first class as required by Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The commitment made by third-class Magistrate of Palkonda is made without jurisdiction and must be quashed (Section 530). The Judge suggests further that the Senior Assistant Magistrate should be directed to investigate the complaint perferred to him by the accused. Though the action taken by the Senior Assistant Magistrate in dismissing the complaint is in accordance with Section 203, the High Court at Calcutta has pointed out in several cases the desirability of holding a preliminary inquiry under Section 476, in order that the party complaining may have an opportunity of showing in the preliminary inquiry the truth or the bona fide character of his complaint. The order of the Senior Assistant Magistrate referring the case to the third-class Magistrate is also quashed, and he is directed to take proceedings under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.


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