Skip to content


In Re: Arikatla Nagireddi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1938Mad112; 173Ind.Cas.213
AppellantIn Re: Arikatla Nagireddi and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....was to direct further inquiry into the case, which does not necessarily imply that process should be issued to the person against whom the complaint was directed. all that it is necessary to say is that the magistrate before whom the case now is should hold an inquiry under section 202, criminal p.c. and proceed according to law, with unfettered discretion to dismiss the complaint once more if he thinks it proper to do so. the criminal revision petition is allowed.
Judgment:
ORDER

Newsam, J.

The order of the District Magistrate Under Section 436, Criminal P.C. is not correct in form or in substance. He cannot compel a Magistrate to take cognizance of a complaint. He has said that the complaint 'should be restored to file', but as it was dismissed Under Section 203 it never was on the file. The proper order to have made was to direct further inquiry into the case, which does not necessarily imply that process should be issued to the person against whom the complaint was directed. All that it is necessary to say is that the Magistrate before whom the case now is should hold an inquiry Under Section 202, Criminal P.C. and proceed according to law, with unfettered discretion to dismiss the complaint once more if he thinks it proper to do so. The criminal revision petition is allowed.


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