JUDGMENT

1. This rule is directed against an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Serampore summoning the petitioner under Sections 211 and 182, I.P.C. What happened in the case was this. The petitioner Lachmi Shaw lodged an ejahar before the police bringing a charge of theft against one Babaji Naik. The police enquired into the matter and submitted their report. The petitioner filed before the Magistrate what is called a naraji petition, whereupon the learned Magistrate sent the matter to an Honorary Magistrate for enquiry and report; and when the Honorary Magistrate submitted his report, the learned Subdivisional Magistrate passed the order complained of.

2. The order complained of cannot in our opinion, be allowed to stand. The learned Magistrate, in our judgment, was wrong in law when he issued a process against the petitioner under Sections 211 and 182, I.P.C. without having dismissed the naraji petition of the petitioner which was to be treated as a complaint. This naraji petition of the petitioner still remains undisposed of and that being so, the order passed by the learned Magistrate was not justifiable in law We would, accordingly, make the rule absolute which w