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

1957 Supreme(Cal) 66

DEBABRATA MOOKHERJEE
SUSHIL KUMAR HAZRA – Appellant
Versus
BANKA MAHATO – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
MONHAR SHAH, RABINDRA NARAYAN CHAKRAWORTY

DEBABRATA MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Midnapur and the opposite party to show cause why certain proceedings pending against the petitioners under Sections 147 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code' should not be quashed or why such other or further orders should not be made as, to this Court might seem fit and proper.

( 2 ) A petition of complaint was filed on the 16th December, 1954, in respect of an occurrence which had taken place on the 13th of that month, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Midnapur. On receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate did not take cognisance of the offence disclosed, but directed the police to do so under the provisions of Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police thereafter took cognisance and held an investigation which resulted in a final report. Directly after the submission of the final report, the complainant submitted a Naraji petition, and the learned Magistrate, without examining the complainant on the Naraji, directed a judicial enquiry to be held into the complaint. Some evidence was taken at that enquiry, and eventually the present petitioners, who were th







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