High CourtsDivision Bench(1937) 09 MAD CK 0039

In Re: Arikatla Nagireddi and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 23 September 1937 · Citation: AIR 1938 Mad 112 : 173 Ind. Cas. 213 : (1937) 46 LW 642

HON’BLE JUDGES
Newsam, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 141 words

Newsam, J.

The order of the District Magistrate u/s 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 u/s 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 u/s 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.