Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Lachmi Shaw - Appellant
Versus
Emperor - Respondent
Decided On : 24-07-1931
Summoning - Criminal Procedure - The court set aside the order summoning the petitioner under Sections 182 and 211, I.P.C. as the Magistrate was wrong in law to issue a process without dismissing the naraji petition, which was to be treated as a complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner lodged a charge of theft against an individual, and the Magistrate issued a process against the petitioner under Sections 182 and 211, I.P.C. without dismissing the naraji petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order summoning the petitioner was not justifiable in law as the Magistrate was wrong to issue a process without dismissing the naraji petition.
Issues: The issue was whether the Magistrate's order summoning the petitioner under Sections 182 and 211, I.P.C. was justifiable in law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Magistrate was wrong in law to issue a process against the petitioner without dismissing the naraji petition, which was to be treated as a complaint.
Final Decision: The court made the rule absolute and set aside the order summoning the petitioner under Sections 182 and 211, I.P.C.
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 we might mention, has not been opposed and set aside the order summoning the petitioner under Sections 182 and 211, I.P.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
