Ram Prosad Maitra vs Emperor

In this case, the complaint was dismissed u/s 203, Criminal P.C. Subsequently, the matter went before the learned Sessions Judge and he was of opinion that the complaint should not have been disposed of u/s 203, Criminal P.C., without the complainant been examined on oath. It appears, however, that the complainant was not present in Court on any of the dates on which the matter came before the Magistrate. Therefore, the Magistrate had no opportunity whatsoever of examining the complainant on oath. It was the business of the complainant to be present in Court if he desired to have his statement taken on oath. As already stated he not being present in Court the matter was disposed of by the Magistrate u/s 203, Criminal P.C. In a case like this, where the complainant does not choose to be present, he cannot be heard afterwards to say that the matter should be sent back to the Magistrate for further enquiry. In this view of the matter the order made by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside. The Rule is accordingly made absolute.