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.

Durjodhan Bhat Vs. Emperor

Durjodhan Bhat vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Feb 13, 1925
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/873346

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
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Complaint - Proceeding drawn up and forwarded to a Magistrate for disposal--Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1808) Section 476. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Durjodhan Bhat

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1925Cal1226,(1925)ILR52Cal666

Excerpt

complaint - proceeding drawn up and forwarded to a magistrate for disposal--criminal procedure code (act v of 1808) section 476. - newbould and ghose, jj.1. we think that the order of the magistrate, on which this case was based, cannot be regarded as a complaint as required by section 476 of the criminal procedure code, as it has been amended. we, accordingly, make the rule absolute, and quash the proceedings now pending against the petitioner. this will be no bar to proceedings being again instituted against him if the magistrate thinks proper to make a complaint in proper form.

Full Judgment

Newbould and Ghose, JJ.

1. We think that the order of the Magistrate, on which this case was based, cannot be regarded as a complaint as required by Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it has been amended. We, accordingly, make the Rule absolute, and quash the proceedings now pending against the petitioner. This will be no bar to proceedings being again instituted against him if the Magistrate thinks proper to make a complaint in proper form.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial