Skip to content


Kundaniyil Ayamutty Vs. Bapputty Alias Muhammad and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1947)2MLJ460
AppellantKundaniyil Ayamutty
RespondentBapputty Alias Muhammad and ors.
Excerpt:
- - 2. i am not satisfied that the order of the learned sessions judge even as against accused 3 to 8 was proper in the circumstances but certainly i see no ground, whatever, to interfere with his order so far as it confirmed the order of dismissal against accused 1 and 2 and 9 and 10. the reason assigned by the learned sessions judge does to a certain extent justify a distinction being made between accused 3 to 8 and the other accused because the former had been mentioned in the dying declaration purported to have been made by the deceased on the 9th september 1945. the learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the complainant had a right to insist upon an enquiry and the trial of the accused......enquiry. the petitioner sought the court of session to revise the order of dismissal passed by the magistrate. the learned sessions judge in revision set aside the order of dismissal so far as accused 3 to 8 were concerned and directed the district magistrate to make further enquiry into the complaint as against them either by himself or by any other magistrate. the petitioner complains that the enquiry should have been directed against the other accused also.2. i am not satisfied that the order of the learned sessions judge even as against accused 3 to 8 was proper in the circumstances but certainly i see no ground, whatever, to interfere with his order so far as it confirmed the order of dismissal against accused 1 and 2 and 9 and 10. the reason assigned by the learned sessions judge.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Rajamannar, J.

1. The petitioner preferred a complaint to the Second Class Magistrate, Perintalamanna, accusing ten persons of the offence of murder of one Mammali alleged to be a servant of the petitioner in September 1945. The complaint was made on 16th February 1946. The Second Class Magistrate after referring to the report made by the police on investigation and the sworn statement of the complainant dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding with the enquiry. The petitioner sought the Court of Session to revise the order of dismissal passed by the Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge in revision set aside the order of dismissal so far as accused 3 to 8 were concerned and directed the District Magistrate to make further enquiry into the complaint as against them either by himself or by any other Magistrate. The petitioner complains that the enquiry should have been directed against the other accused also.

2. I am not satisfied that the order of the learned Sessions Judge even as against accused 3 to 8 was proper in the circumstances but certainly I see no ground, whatever, to interfere with his order so far as it confirmed the order of dismissal against accused 1 and 2 and 9 and 10. The reason assigned by the learned Sessions Judge does to a certain extent justify a distinction being made between accused 3 to 8 and the other accused because the former had been mentioned in the dying declaration purported to have been made by the deceased on the 9th September 1945. The learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the complainant had a right to insist upon an enquiry and the trial of the accused. I do not think that in the case of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code any private person has got any inherent right to insist upon an enquiry. Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure certainly confers ample jurisdiction on the Magistrate to dismiss a complaint if in his opinion no sufficient ground is made out for proceeding with the enquiry.

3. The revision case is, therefore, dismissed.


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