Skip to content


In Re: Marudai Pillai P.C. 232 and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1945Mad458; (1945)2MLJ125
AppellantIn Re: Marudai Pillai P.C. 232 and ors.
Cases ReferredEmperor v. Kushal Pal Singh I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- - 2. the complaint clearly indicates that it was as that of the sub-divisional magistrate of trichinopoly it was forwarded to the sub-divisional magistrate of musiri. 157 clearly indicates that it is as sub-divisional magistrate he was asked to investigate and report and so it is as a court that he made the investigation and came to the conclusion that a prima facie case had been made out. the petitioners have been deprived of the exercise of such a right by reason of the failure on the part of the sub-divisional magistrate of musiri to inform the petitioners about it and ask them whether they wanted the case to be tried by another magistrate......raised an objection that the sub-divisional magistrate of trichinopoly had no jurisdiction to file a complaint and that the proceedings started on such a complaint were illegal and that they should be quashed. the magistrate held that the objection was untenable and overruled it. the very same objection is reiterated here and it is stated that the proceedings should be quashed.2. the complaint clearly indicates that it was as that of the sub-divisional magistrate of trichinopoly it was forwarded to the sub-divisional magistrate of musiri. as a matter of fact, the latter officer wanted such a complaint. police standing order no. 157 clearly indicates that it is as sub-divisional magistrate he was asked to investigate and report and so it is as a court that he made the investigation.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.

1. One Sellamuthu happened to be sent to the Head Quarters Hospital at Trichinopoly in connection with certain injuries found on his person and on information given by him to the District Medical Officer, the Medical Officer thought that the injuries had been caused to him by the police personnel of Turaiyur. as he was of the opinion that the injuries were serious ones likely to result in death, He sent up the papers to the District Magistrate stating that certain allegations had been made against the police personnel of Turaiyur and that it was desirable that there should be an inquiry and steps taken to see that the culprits were punished, if they had really committed any offence. The District Magistrate on receipt of the papers sent them on to the Sub-Divisional Magsitrate of Trichinopoly who was also in additional charge of the Musiri sub-division within which division the offence, if any, had been committed, to make inquiries and report. The papers evidently appear to have been sent under Police Standing Order No. 157. The Magistrate made inquiries, but by the time he finished his inquiries, another gentleman took charge of the Musiri sub-division but the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Trichinopoly continued the inquiry and was of the opinion that a prima facie case had been made out. He then sent a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Musiri but the latter wrote back to him saying that he could take action only if a complaint was sent to him. Thereupon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Trichinopoly as Rex by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Trichinopoly gave a complaint. On that, notice was issued to all the petitioners before this Court, and after inquiry a charge was framed. After the charge was framed the petitioners raised an objection that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Trichinopoly had no jurisdiction to file a complaint and that the proceedings started on such a complaint were illegal and that they should be quashed. The Magistrate held that the objection was untenable and overruled it. The very same objection is reiterated here and it is stated that the proceedings should be quashed.

2. The complaint clearly indicates that it was as that of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Trichinopoly it was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Musiri. As a matter of fact, the latter officer wanted such a complaint. Police Standing Order No. 157 clearly indicates that it is as Sub-Divisional Magistrate he was asked to investigate and report and so it is as a Court that he made the investigation and came to the conclusion that a prima facie case had been made out. As pointed out in Emperor v. Kushal Pal Singh I.L.R.(1931) All. 804 a complaint outside the provisions of Section 476 cannot be filed by a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court under its inherent jurisdiction. My attention has not been drawn to any provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure except Section 190 under which this complaint should have been sent by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Trichinopoly. The offences with which the petitioners have been charged are cognizable offences and it is open to any citizen to file a complaint but then the complaint has not been filed by the Magistrate as an ordinary citizen but by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Trichinopoly in his capacity as such Magistrate. There is some difference in the procedure between an inquiry into a complaint by a private individual and a complaint by a Court. This was pointed out in Emperor v. Kushal Pal Singh I.L.R.(1931)All. 804 When the Code has made provision for circumstances under which a Court can file a complaint, it must be considered to be exhaustive in respect of it and to limit the powers of the Court in making such complaints. Consequently it cannot be said that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to file the complaint in this case.

3. It is urged however that even though he had no jurisdiction to file a complaint, still if such a complaint was received, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Musiri could act under Section 190(c) and take cognizance of the case and the action of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate must be considered to have been taken under that section. If that be so, then under Section 191 it is open to the accused to object to the case being tried by the Magistrate and ask for the case being tried by another Magistrate. The petitioners have been deprived of the exercise of such a right by reason of the failure on the part of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Musiri to inform the petitioners about it and ask them whether they wanted the case to be tried by another Magistrate.

4. The charge framed is therefore set aside. The Magistrate will ask the petitioners if they want to have the case tried by another Magistrate and then proceed with the matter according to law.


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