AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prinsep, J.—The order for further inquiry in this case purports to have been made u/s 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and it relates to proceedings taken u/s 110, requiring the petitioner to give security for good behaviour. Section 437, which is the only Jaw authorizing a Magistrate to reopen proceedings in which a person has been discharged or "released," does not relate to a case of this description. The further inquiry which can be ordered u/s 437 is into a complaint which has been dismissed or into the case of any accused person who has been discharged. A reference to the definition of complaint will show that it relates only to the commission of an offence, and an offence means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force; so that proceedings u/s 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be regarded as on a complaint. Nor can they be regarded as a case in which any accused person has been discharged, for the terms "accused person" and "discharge" in Section 437 clearly refer to a person accused of an offence who has been discharged from a charge of that offence within the terms of Chapter XIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order must therefore be set aside. If it be considered by the Magistrate that it is necessary to institute further proceedings, he is competent to do so under the law on fresh information received.