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

1963 Supreme(AP) 159

BASI REDDY, ANANTA NARAYANA AYYAR
Chidra Lingamurthy – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. – Respondent


( 1 ) IN P. R. C. No. 2 of 1962, the learned Principal Munsif-Magistrate of Warangal passed an order committing the three accused therein to the Sessions Court, Warangal for trial after framing charges under Section 467 I. P. C. against A-1 to A-3 and under Sections 209, 471 and 193 I. P. C. against A-1. The three accused filed this revision petition for quashing the order of committal.

( 2 ) IN the order of committal, it is mentioned that the committal is under Section 207-A (7) Cr. P. C. and accordingly, the revision petition mentions that it is filed under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. But, in fact, the committal inquiry was held on the basis of a complaint filed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Warangal and not on a police report. Therefore, in view of Section 207 Cr. P. C. the procedure which had , to be followed was that indicated in Section 207 (b) and Section 208 Cr. P. C. onwards. The committal must be deemed to have been made under Section 213 Cr. P. C. and not under Section 207-A (7 ). Consequently, the petition for quashing must be deemed to be under Section 215 Cr. P. C. which is the correct section applicable to this case. Under that Section, quashing can be done only on a
























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