Gunamony Sapui vs Queen Empress

A rule has been granted on the application made by one Gunamony, against whom proceedings have been taken under secs. 211 and 112, I. P. C.; and we have to consider, in the terms of the rule, whether it is shown that he has com mitted any offence. It appears that one Syambar, accompanied by Gunamony, went to the police-station, and charged certain persons with murder and other offences; and, after the police investigation, a report was made to the effect that the information was false. The Magistrate thereupon directed proceedings to be taken against Syambar and Gunamony and others, to show cause why they should not be prosecuted. Syambar then appeared before the Magistrate, repeating the information before the police in the form of a complaint, and asked for an enquiry. The Magistrate then directed an enquiry to be held by another Magistrate, Mr. C.N. Singh. Several persons have been examined by this Magistrate, and a report was made that the complaint was false. The Magistrate thereupon issued processes against the persons to appear before him and to answer certain charges; but he never put an end to the complaint of Syambar, by dismissing it under sec. 203, or passing-such other order as he might think fit. We think, therefore, that the proceedings against Gunamony must be quashed, and no further proceedings can be taken, as was ordered by the Magistrate, until final orders had been passed on the complaint of Syambar. There is another matter which requires remark. We observe that, on the 23rd of May, an application was made to the Magistrate to stay proceedings on the ground that the Petitioner was about to apply to the High Court, under sec. 526 of the Code, to transfer this case from this Magistrate to another Magistrate. The proceedings were accordingly stayed. The application made to us, however, on the 12th June, makes no reference to the application under sec. 526, nor have we been asked to transfer the case to another Magistrate. This is not the first instance of the kind that has been brought to our notice in the course of the last two or three days. We have little doubt that in this case, as well as in others, the legal advisers of the accused have obtained an order from the Magistrate, staying proceedings, which they otherwise could never have obtained, and apparently they have done so on a misrepresentation. We have already strongly condemned such proceedings, and we shall be compelled to mark our sense of the impropriety of such applications to Magistrates whereby they improperly obtain orders staying proceedings, if our remarks in the present case do not have any effect.

We accordingly direct that the proceedings which have been taken by the Magistrate be quashed. We do not wish it to be understood that under no circumstances could Gunamony have been prosecuted for abetment without any proceedings being taken against Syambar, but we think that, as Syambar has challenged an enquiry by the Magistrate into the truth of his complaint, and no final order has been passed on that complaint, any action in respect of Gunamony should be deferred until such final order shall have been passed.