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

1999 Supreme(Mad) 1773

MUNIKANNIAH
Sagarla Pitchamma – Appellant
Versus
Lakshmi Narasamma – Respondent


Advocates:
P. Venkatadri Sastri, for Petitioners.
S. Suryaprakasam and V. Venkateswarlu, for Respondents.

Order.-

This revision under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, arises out of the dropping of the petition filed under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Munsif-Magistrate, Nalgonda, on the ground that none on behalf of the parties is present and hence it appeared to him that no dispute in respect of the house likely to cause a breach of peace existed. The second party filed an application for revising the orders before the Sessions Judge, at Nalgonda. He considered the facts of the case and concluded that the proper order in the circumstances to pass is under section 146, Criminal Procedure Code and not under section 145, sub-section (5). This reference is made by him with the recommendation for remanding the case to the Court of the Munsif-Magistrate either to take action under section 146(1), Criminal Procedure Code or to decide the question of actual possession on merits after hearing the arguments of parties or after going through the record.

Mr. Suryaprakasam, the learned counsel for the first party, contends that under sub-section 5 of section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, Courts can act suo motu and drop proceedings if it appears to it that there exists no disput




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