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.

In Re: Velu Nattan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 29, 1911
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/796393

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
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 203 - Dismissal of complaint under Section 203 without taking sworn statement of complainant. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Velu Nattan

Legal References

Cases Referred
Empress v. Murphy I.L.R.
Reported In
(1912)ILR35Mad606

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, section 203 - dismissal of complaint under section 203 without taking sworn statement of complainant. - orderspencer, j.1. it is argued that the presidency magistrate had no power to dismiss a complaint under section 203, criminal procedure code, without examining the complainant. it was held in queen-empress v. murphy i.l.r. (1887) all. 666 that a verification on oath of a complaint; before a magi strata, was a sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 203, and this has bean followed in criminal revision case no. 398 of 1908 on the file of this court with special reference to the procedure provided for presidency magistrates under section 200 (b). in the present ease the petitioner's vakil was present when the magistrate passed orders under section 203 criminal procedure code, dismissing the complaint and in the absence of any affidavit saying that he was precluded from showing cause against accepting the result of the police enquiry, i am not prepared to find that the complainant was in any way prejudiced by 'the magistrate's procedure, assuming that the law required him to make a more detailed examination. at the most the omission to examine in this case amounts to no more than an irregularity of the description covered by section 537, criminal procedure code, the petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Spencer, J.

1. It is argued that the Presidency Magistrate had no power to dismiss a complaint under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, without examining the complainant. It was held in Queen-Empress v. Murphy I.L.R. (1887) All. 666 that a verification on oath of a complaint; before a Magi strata, was a sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 203, and this has bean followed in Criminal Revision Case No. 398 of 1908 on the file of this Court with special reference to the procedure provided for Presidency Magistrates under Section 200 (b). In the present ease the petitioner's vakil was present when the Magistrate passed orders under Section 203 Criminal Procedure Code, dismissing the complaint and in the absence of any affidavit saying that he was precluded from showing cause against accepting the result of the police enquiry, I am not prepared to find that the complainant was in any way prejudiced by 'the Magistrate's procedure, assuming that the law required him to make a more detailed examination. At the most the omission to examine in this case amounts to no more than an irregularity of the description covered by Section 537, Criminal Procedure Code, The petition is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial