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: Perumal Naick

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 17, 1925
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/818536

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 (Act V of 1898), Section 190 - Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 211--False charge of dacoity before Village Magistrate--Case struck off on Police report--Charge by Police of false information, legality of--Complaint--Procedure. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Perumal Naick

Legal References

Reported In
90Ind.Cas.398

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 190 - penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 211--false charge of dacoity before village magistrate--case struck off on police report--charge by police of false information, legality of--complaint--procedure. - order1. this is an application to quash the proceedings, now pending before the sub-magistrate of satur, on the ground that no complaint was filed in the case to enable the magistrate to take proceedings against the petitioner. the petitioner made a statement to the village munsif of mela raja kularaman, that a dacoity was committed in his house and mentioned certain persons as having taken part in the dacoity. the village munsif forwarded the complaint to the police, who held an investigation and reported the case as false. the sub-magistrate of srivilliputtur to whom the papers were sent, accepted the referred charge-sheet and struck the case off his file. the police put in a charge-sheet before the sub-divisional magistrate of sivakasi, against the petitioner for an offence under section 211, indian penal code. the sub-divisional magistrate transferred the case to the second glass magistrate of satur. the contention of the petitioner is that there is no complaint from the second glass magistrate of srivilliputtur, who acted on the referred charge-sheet of an offence tinder section 211 and, therefore, the proceedings are illegal.2. without expressing an opinion on that contention, we are satisfied that this is not a case in which the police could start proceedings of their own accord. the offence under section 211 is a non-cognizable one, and the police are not empowered to investigate into a non-cognizable offence, and charge the petitioner. it is open either to any of the accused in the alleged dacoity case or to the village munsif, or any police officer, to prefer a complaint under section 190. cr. p.c. in which case the magistrate before whom the complaint is made may take the case on his file after taking a sworn statement from the complainant. such a course was not adopted in this case. we think the proceedings before, the lower court are illegal and they are hereby quashed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. This is an application to quash the proceedings, now pending before the Sub-Magistrate of Satur, on the ground that no complaint was filed in the case to enable the Magistrate to take proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner made a statement to the Village Munsif of Mela Raja Kularaman, that a dacoity was committed in his house and mentioned certain persons as having taken part in the dacoity. The Village Munsif forwarded the complaint to the Police, who held an investigation and reported the case as false. The Sub-Magistrate of Srivilliputtur to whom the papers were sent, accepted the referred charge-sheet and struck the case off his file. The Police put in a charge-sheet before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Sivakasi, against the petitioner for an offence under Section 211, Indian Penal Code. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate transferred the case to the Second Glass Magistrate of Satur. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no complaint from the Second Glass Magistrate of Srivilliputtur, who acted on the referred charge-sheet of an offence tinder Section 211 and, therefore, the proceedings are illegal.

2. Without expressing an opinion on that contention, we are satisfied that this is not a case in which the Police could start proceedings of their own accord. The offence under Section 211 is a non-cognizable one, and the Police are not empowered to investigate into a non-cognizable offence, and charge the petitioner. It is open either to any of the accused in the alleged dacoity case or to the Village Munsif, or any Police Officer, to prefer a complaint under Section 190. Cr. P.C. in which case the Magistrate before whom the complaint is made may take the case on his file after taking a sworn statement from the complainant. Such a course was not adopted in this case. We think the proceedings before, the lower Court are illegal and they are hereby quashed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial