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.

Khetter Mohan Mitter Vs. Emperor

Khetter Mohan Mitter vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jan 03, 1913
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/871205

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
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Other Taxes

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Sections 4(h), 190(c) and 200 - Complaint--Cognizance of offence on complaint--Examination of complainant--Issue of summons--Letter to Magistrate informing that accused used insulting language to writer and asking Magistrate to take action, whether complaint. -

Key legal issue
Other Taxes

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Khetter Mohan Mitter

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
18Ind.Cas.412

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 4(h), 190(c) and 200 - complaint--cognizance of offence on complaint--examination of complainant--issue of summons--letter to magistrate informing that accused used insulting language to writer and asking magistrate to take action, whether complaint. - 1. this was a rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the proceedings should not be set aside for the present, on the ground that they were instituted upon a complaint and that, therefore, process ought not to have been issued until the complainant had been examined on oath.2. the learned sub-divisional magistrate has explained that he took cognizance of the offence under section 190 clause (c), criminal procedure code. but it would seem that this must be a mistake, because the letter of babu nirapada mukerjee, on which the proceedings were initiated, is on the record of the case, and if really the case was not started on that latter, it is difficult to understand why it should find a place on the record. in that letter, babu nirapada mukerjee stated that the present petitioner used insulting language towards him and asked the magistrate to take action. this certainly comes within the definition of complaint given in section 4, criminal procedure cods; and the learned magistrate, therefore, should have examined the complainant and then proceeded in accordance with law.3. the rule is made absolute. the magistrate will now proceed to examine the complainant and then deal with the case in accordance with law.

Full Judgment

1. This was a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the proceedings should not be set aside for the present, on the ground that they were instituted upon a complaint and that, therefore, process ought not to have been issued until the complainant had been examined on oath.

2. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has explained that he took cognizance of the offence under Section 190 Clause (c), Criminal Procedure Code. But it would seem that this must be a mistake, because the letter of Babu Nirapada Mukerjee, on which the proceedings were initiated, is on the record of the case, and if really the case was not started on that latter, it is difficult to understand why it should find a place on the record. In that letter, Babu Nirapada Mukerjee stated that the present petitioner used insulting language towards him and asked the Magistrate to take action. This certainly comes within the definition of complaint given in Section 4, Criminal Procedure Cods; and the learned Magistrate, therefore, should have examined the complainant and then proceeded in accordance with law.

3. The Rule is made absolute. The Magistrate will now proceed to examine the complainant and then deal with the case in accordance with law.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial