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

1990 Supreme(Mad) 904

PUREED PILLAY
Krishna Bhat – Appellant
Versus
Keshav Bhat – Respondent


Advocates:
D.Krisima Prasad, for Petitioner. U.P. Kunikkullaya, for Respondent.

Judgment :

The revision petitioner filed I.A.No.623 of 1989 in O.S.No.26 of 1987 before the Sub-Court, Kasaragod for initiating action against the respondent under Sec.340 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Sub-Judge dismissed the application and hence the civil revision petition.

2. The preliminary objection to the revision petition is that it is not maintainable.

3. Chapter 26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the provisions as to offences affecting administration of justice. Sec.340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is intended to be complementary to Sec.195 Sec.195 is an exception to the general rule that any person having knowledge of the commission of an offence can set the law in motion by a complaint even if he is not interested in or affected by the offence. This section bars cognizance being taken of the offences mentioned therein except where there is a complaint in writing by the Court or by the public servant. Chief object of the section is to put a stop to reckless prosecution by private persons. Sec. 34(1) removes the bar by conferring jurisdiction on the Court to file the complaint. The Section provides the procedure to be followed in the case of complaints

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