AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajamannar, J.—The petitioner preferred a complaint to the Second Class Magistrate, Perintalamanna, accusing ten persons of the offence
of murder of one Mammali alleged to be a servant of the petitioner in September 1945. The complaint was made on 16th February 1946. The
Second Class Magistrate after referring to the report made by the police on investigation and the sworn statement of the complainant dismissed the
complaint u/s 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding with the enquiry. The petitioner
sought the Court of Session to revise the order of dismissal passed by the Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge in revision set aside the order of
dismissal so far as accused 3 to 8 were concerned and directed the District Magistrate to make further enquiry into the complaint as against them
either by himself or by any other Magistrate. The petitioner complains that the enquiry should have been directed against the other accused also.
I am not satisfied that the order of the learned Sessions Judge even as against accused 3 to 8 was proper in the circumstances but certainly I see
no ground, whatever, to interfere with his order so far as it confirmed the order of dismissal against accused 1 and 2 and 9 and 10. The reason
assigned by the learned Sessions Judge does to a certain extent justify a distinction being made between accused 3 to 8 and the other accused
because the former had been mentioned in the dying declaration purported to have been made by the deceased on the 9th September 1945. The
learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the complainant had a right to insist upon an enquiry and the trial of the accused. I do not think
that in the case of an offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code any private person has got any inherent right to insist upon an enquiry. Section 203
of the Code of Criminal Procedure certainly confers ample jurisdiction on the Magistrate to dismiss a complaint if in his opinion no sufficient ground
is made out for proceeding with the enquiry.
The revision case is, therefore, dismissed.