Back
1910 Supreme(Cal) 271
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Chitty, J., Carnduff, J.
Haru Tanti - Appellant
Versus
Satish Roy & Anr. - Respondent
Decided On : 08-12-1910
Subject
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
Criminal Procedure - Section 250 - Compensation for Frivolous or Vexatious Complaint
Fact of the Case:
The case involves an order awarding compensation to the accused persons by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate after discharging them from the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the order awarding compensation as it was made without jurisdiction, as the requirements of Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not fulfilled.
Issues: Whether the order awarding compensation was made in accordance with the provisions of Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly requires that before a Magistrate makes it the ground, or a ground for discharging a person complained against that the complaint was frivolous or vexatious, he shall hear the complainant on that aspect of the case. Failure to do so renders the entire proceeding as to compensation bad.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order awarding compensation as it was made without jurisdiction, as the requirements of Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not fulfilled.
JUDGMENT
1. For the reason given by the learned Sessions Judge and following the decision of Banerji, J., in In the matter of the complaint of Safdar Husain 25 A. 315 we set aside, as having been made without jurisdiction, the order awarding compensation in this case.
2. The course taken by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in including in his order for the discharge of the two accused an order calling on their accuser to show cause why he should not pay them compensation and subsequently, after hearing the accuser, making the award, may seem to be perfectly fair and reasonable; but it does not fulfil the requirements of Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code. What that section evidently contemplates and, if carefully read, will be found expressly to require, is that, before a Magistrate makes it the ground, or a ground for discharging a person complained against that the complaint was frivolous or vexatious, he shall hear the complainant on that aspect of the case and unless he does this, the whole proceeding as to compensation is bad.
