In Re: Muse Ali Adam - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
code of criminal procedure (act x of 1872), section 210 - sanction--complainant--withdrawal--indian penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 183. - section 31(4) (since repealed) :[tarun chatterjee & h.l.dattu, jj] jurisdiction of high court - respondent, a government company, chartered appellants vessel to carry rock phosphate from togo to west coast india - dispute arose between parties - under agreement, respondent had chosen mumbai as port of delivery vessel carrying rock phosphate was delivered at port of bombay - application filed by respondent earlier before delhi high court for appointment of certain individual as arbitrator had become infructuous because of his demise held, high court of bombay, is not correct in rejecting arbitration petition filed by appellant on ground of lack of..........and no proceedings could have been instituted against the offender without the sanction of the court whose authority had been resisted. in such a case the complainant spoken of in section 210 of the code of criminal procedure, must be deemed to be the court resisted, and not the person injured through the resistance. therefore, to make the withdrawal of such a complaint, as that under consideration, legal, it must be based on the application alone of the court or authority sanctioning the proceedings.2. the court annuls the order of the subordinate magistrate, permitting the withdrawal of the charge in this case, and directs the magistrate to proceed with the trial, and dispose of the case according to law.