Skip to content


Kamulammal Avargal Vs. Vavu Rowthar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in33Ind.Cas.314
AppellantKamulammal Avargal
RespondentVavu Rowthar and ors.
Cases ReferredManindra Chandra Nandu v. Barada Kanta Chowdhry
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 145, proceedings under - magistrate, jurisdiction of, to stop proceedings. - .....arrested and convicted of another offence and imprisoned and so the whole danger disappeared, the enquiry would have to go on. the chief points relied on are section 145, clauses (5) and (7). clause 7 provides that the proceedings shall not abate, but this obviously is' intended to keep alive the jurisdiction of the magistrate where the danger to the peace still exists inspite of the death. clause (5) gives a right to the parties, etc., to get the proceedings stayed, but we can see no reason why the magistrate should be powerless to do this without their intervention. we entirely agree with the observations of the court in manindra chandra nandu v. barada kanta chowdhry 6 c.w.n. 417 as to the object and scope of the proceedings.2. the petition is dismissed.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The point is taken that once an enquiry under Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code has got beyond the stage when the parties or other persons interested can show that no such dispute exists, the Court has no jurisdiction to decline to proceed with the enquiry. This construction would have this extraordinary result that if two persons who were likely to commit a breach of the peace were arrested and convicted of another offence and imprisoned and so the whole danger disappeared, the enquiry would have to go on. The chief points relied on are Section 145, Clauses (5) and (7). Clause 7 provides that the proceedings shall not abate, but this obviously is' intended to keep alive the jurisdiction of the Magistrate where the danger to the peace still exists inspite of the death. Clause (5) gives a right to the parties, etc., to get the proceedings stayed, but we can see no reason why the Magistrate should be powerless to do this without their intervention. We entirely agree with the observations of the Court in Manindra Chandra Nandu v. Barada Kanta Chowdhry 6 C.W.N. 417 as to the object and scope of the proceedings.

2. The petition is dismissed.


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