Pampalli Subbareddi and ors. Vs. Chauduboyigari Kamal Saib - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 203 - order dismissing complaint not set aside--subsequent complaint on same facts, whether can be entertained by another magistrate. - orderphillips, j.1. the ruling in mahomed abdul mention v. panduranga row 28 m.p 255 : 2 weir 247 : 2 cri. l.j. 752, is in favour of petitioners' contention that when a complaint has been dismissed under section 203, code of criminal procedure, no magistrate can entertain the same complaint until the order of dismissal is set aside by a competent authority. this view was overruled in emperor v. chinna kaliappa gounden 3 cri. l.j. 274 : 29 m.p 126 : 1 m.l.t. 31 : 16 m.l.j. 79 so far as entertainment of a complaint a second time by the same magistrate is concerned, and the principle on which the case in emperor v. chinna kaliappa gounden 3 cri. l.j. 274 : 29 m.p 126 : 1 m.l.t. 31 : 16 m.l.j. 79, was decided is applicable also to a case taken up a second time by a different magistrate. it is clearly explained by sir francis w. maclean, c.j., in queen-empress v. dolegobind das 28 c.p 211 : 5 c.w.n. 169 and i entirely agree with the reasoning.2. in this case, therefore, i hold that the sub-divisional magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and dismiss this petition.

Judgment:
ORDER

Phillips, J.

1. The ruling in Mahomed Abdul Mention v. Panduranga Row 28 M.P 255 : 2 Weir 247 : 2 Cri. L.J. 752, is in favour of petitioners' contention that when a complaint has been dismissed under Section 203, Code of Criminal Procedure, no Magistrate can entertain the same complaint until the order of dismissal is set aside by a competent authority. This view was overruled in Emperor v. Chinna Kaliappa Gounden 3 Cri. L.J. 274 : 29 M.P 126 : 1 M.L.T. 31 : 16 M.L.J. 79 so far as entertainment of a complaint a second time by the same Magistrate is concerned, and the principle on which the case in Emperor v. Chinna Kaliappa Gounden 3 Cri. L.J. 274 : 29 M.P 126 : 1 M.L.T. 31 : 16 M.L.J. 79, was decided is applicable also to a case taken up a second time by a different Magistrate. It is clearly explained by Sir Francis W. Maclean, C.J., in Queen-Empress v. Dolegobind Das 28 C.P 211 : 5 C.W.N. 169 and I entirely agree with the reasoning.

2. In this case, therefore, I hold that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and dismiss this petition.