SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(SC) 256

M.FAZAL ALI SYED, V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI
Lalit Mohan Mondal – Appellant
Versus
Benoyendra Nath Chatterjee – Respondent


Judgment-

S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI

( 1 ) WE have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment of the High Court. We agree with the High Court that against an order passed in appeal under S. 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the order would not be revisable by the High Court under S. 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , but there can be no doubt that the Court is entitled to examine the matter under Sec. 482 of the criminal P. C. which expressly overrules the bar contained in S. 341 of the Code. In the instant case, the High Court has merely indicated that this is not a fit case for invoking the inherent power without at all applying its mind whether or not the circumstances, it was a fit case for filing a complaint, particularly when the matter rested merely on oath against oath.

( 2 ) FOR this reason, therefore, we allow this appeal and remit the case to the High Court to send for the records and satisfy itself whether the order directing complaint to be filed is expedient in the interest of justice, so as to attract its inherent jurisdiction under S. 482 of the Code. Meanwhile, further proceedings will be stayed. Order accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top