Skip to content


Sheikh Siddik Vs. Sheikh Chakauri Khansamah - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in18Ind.Cas.683
AppellantSheikh Siddik
RespondentSheikh Chakauri Khansamah
Cases Referred and Nagendra Nath Sen v. Mr. Korb
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 203 and 435, sub-section (4), 437 - dismissal of complaint by deputy magistrate--fresh complaint to district magistrate--sending case to deputy magistrate for report--dismissal of case by district magistrate after considering report--order for further inquiry by sessions judge, if within jurisdiction. - .....it appears that one chakauri khansamah made a complaint against the petitioner in the court of the deputy magistrate of singhbhoom, on the 21st november 1911, and the deputy magistrate passed the following order on his petition: 'sub-inspector, chaibassa, to inquire and report, under section 406, indian penal coda, by the 1st proximo.' on the 28th november 1911, apparently after considering the police officer's report, the deputy magistrate passed the following order: 'enter mistake of law. section 406, indian penal code.' the opposite party then, on the 1st december, put in another complaint before the district magistrate. the district magistrate sent this to the deputy magistrate for judicial inquiry and report; and after considering his report, he directed that the case should be.....
Judgment:

1. This is a Rule calling on the District Magistrate of Manbhoom to show cause why the order of the Sessions Judge directing a further inquiry should not be set aside, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to order further inquiry against the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner.

2. It appears that one Chakauri Khansamah made a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the Deputy Magistrate of Singhbhoom, on the 21st November 1911, and the Deputy Magistrate passed the following order on his petition: 'Sub-Inspector, Chaibassa, to inquire and report, under Section 406, Indian Penal Coda, by the 1st proximo.' On the 28th November 1911, apparently after considering the Police officer's report, the Deputy Magistrate passed the following order: 'Enter mistake of law. Section 406, Indian Penal Code.' The opposite party then, on the 1st December, put in another complaint before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate sent this to the Deputy Magistrate for judicial inquiry and report; and after considering his report, he directed that the case should be entered as false and as the outcome of a civil dispute. Then Chakauri Khansamah applied to the Sessions Judge, who ordered a further inquiry under Section 437, Criminal Procedure Code.

3. It appears to us, having regard to the provisions of Section 435, Sub-section (4), Criminal procedure code, that a further inquiry should not have been ordered. The decisions in the cases of Girish Chandra Bose v. Emperor 6 C.W.N. 638 and Nagendra Nath Sen v. Mr. Korb 8 C.W.N. 456; 1 Cr. L.J. 355 indicate that the Deputy Magistrate's order of the 28th November 1911, which we have quoted above, must be regarded as an order dismissing Chakauri Khansamah's complaint. When, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to revise that order and to have a further inquiry made, it must be taken, we think, that he was acting under Section 435, Criminal Procedure Code. The case having been disposed of by a competent authority, it could not have been withdrawn by the District Magistrate to his own file under Section 528, Criminal Procedure Code, and we do not see under what other provisions of the Code he could have directed this further inquiry.

4. That being so, we think that on the principle of Sub-section (4) to Section 435, Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Sessions Judge should not have taken further action in the case.

5. The Rule is accordingly made absolute and the order of the Sessions Judge set aside.


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