Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Chaitan Lal Vs. Emperor

Chaitan Lal vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jun 08, 1918
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/467613

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898,), Section 435 - Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 182--Complaint of theft compromised--Prosecution under Section 182, Penal Code propriety of. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chaitan Lal

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1918All100(1); 46Ind.Cas.410

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898,), section 435 - penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 182--complaint of theft compromised--prosecution under section 182, penal code propriety of. - p.c. banerji, j.1. 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 under section 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 under section 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 under section 435 of the code of criminal procedure as held in jai narain lal v. emperor 46 ind. cas. 407 : 16 a.l.j. 458.

Full Judgment

P.C. Banerji, J.

1. 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 under Section 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 under Section 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 under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as held in Jai Narain Lal v. Emperor 46 Ind. Cas. 407 : 16 A.L.J. 458.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial