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.

Lachmi Shaw Vs. Emperor

Lachmi Shaw vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jul 24, 1931
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/865823

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
Kolkata
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Lachmi Shaw

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1932Cal383,137Ind.Cas.849

Excerpt

- 1. this rule is directed against an order passed by the sub-divisional magistrate of serampore summoning the petitioner under sections 211 and 182, i.p.c. what happened in the case was this. the petitioner lachmi shaw lodged an ejahar before the police bringing a charge of theft against one babaji naik. the police enquired into the matter and submitted their report. the petitioner filed before the magistrate what is called a naraji petition, whereupon the learned magistrate sent the matter to an honorary magistrate for enquiry and report; and when the honorary magistrate submitted his report, the learned subdivisional magistrate passed the order complained of.2. the order complained of cannot in our opinion, be allowed to stand. the learned magistrate, in our judgment, was wrong in law when he issued a process against the petitioner under sections 211 and 182, i.p.c. without having dismissed the naraji petition of the petitioner which was to be treated as a complaint. this naraji petition of the petitioner still remains undisposed of and that being so, the order passed by the learned magistrate was not justifiable in law we would, accordingly, make the rule absolute which we might mention, has not been opposed and set aside the order summoning the petitioner under sections 182 and 211, i.p.c.

Full Judgment

1. This rule is directed against an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Serampore summoning the petitioner under Sections 211 and 182, I.P.C. What happened in the case was this. The petitioner Lachmi Shaw lodged an ejahar before the police bringing a charge of theft against one Babaji Naik. The police enquired into the matter and submitted their report. The petitioner filed before the Magistrate what is called a naraji petition, whereupon the learned Magistrate sent the matter to an Honorary Magistrate for enquiry and report; and when the Honorary Magistrate submitted his report, the learned Subdivisional Magistrate passed the order complained of.

2. The order complained of cannot in our opinion, be allowed to stand. The learned Magistrate, in our judgment, was wrong in law when he issued a process against the petitioner under Sections 211 and 182, I.P.C. without having dismissed the naraji petition of the petitioner which was to be treated as a complaint. This naraji petition of the petitioner still remains undisposed of and that being so, the order passed by the learned Magistrate was not justifiable in law We would, accordingly, make the rule absolute which we might mention, has not been opposed and set aside the order summoning the petitioner under Sections 182 and 211, I.P.C.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial