Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
P.C. BANERJI, J.
Chaitan Lal - Appellant
Versus
Emperor - Respondent
Decided On : 08-06-1918
JUDGMENT
P.C. Banerji, J. - Two brothers Kishen Murari and Chaitan Lal lived in the same house but occupied different quarters. During the absence of Chaitan Lal, Kishen Murari is said to have broken open the door of the room occupied by Chaitan Lal. Chaitan Lal made a report to the Police charging his brother with theft. He also filed a complaint before a Magistrate. The matter was subsequently compromised and the case brought in the Criminal Court was dismissed. After all this on the application of the Police the Superintendent of Police sanctioned the prosecution of Chaitan Lal for bringing a false charge u/s 182 of the Indian Penal Code and he is being prosecuted under that section. Arguments have been addressed to me on the question whether the case comes within the purview of Section 182 or Section 211. I do not deem it necessary to decide the question of law just raised, because in my opinion this is not a case in which any action ought to have been taken and any proceedings instituted. The dispute was one between two brothers. The offence with which Kishen Murari was charged might or might not be theft but no advantage would be gained by continuing the proceedings which have been instituted u/s 182. I accordingly quash those proceedings and direct that they be discontinued. I make this order in exercise of the powers vested in this Court u/s 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as held in Jai Narain Lal v. Emperor 46 Ind. Cas. 407 : 16 A.L.J. 458.
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
