BHUSAN DAS Vs. TULSI GANGULI
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Click here to view full judgement.
Monoj K.Mukherjee, J. -
(1.) On a petition filed by the petitioner, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barasat passed an order of restraint under S.144 Cr. P.C. Against the opposite parties in this Rule It having been brought to he notice of the learned Magistrate that the opposite parties in the Rule. It having been brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate that the opposite parties violated his order on three dates viz., 13.5.79., 27.5.79 and 3.6.79, the learned Magistrate filed a complaint under S.188 I. P. C against them in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Barasat. After entering appearance in the said case the opposite parties filed an application for their discharge on the ground that the order under S. 144 Cr P. C. Was not a valid order and as such the prosecution against them under S.188 I. P. C. Was not maintainable. The learned Magistrate allowed the said application by his order dated 25. 1.82 and stopped the proceeding under S. 258 Cr. P.C. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has filed the present application.
(2.) Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner raised two points in support of the Rule. He first contended that since the case under S.188 I P C was instituted upon a complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate could not have invoked S. 258 Cr. P C and stopped the proceeding. He next contended that the learned. Magistrate erred in law in sitting in judgment over the validity and legality of the order under S. 144 Cr. P. C,
(3.) So far as the first contention of Mr. Ghosh is concerned I am in agreement with him that the learned Magistrate was not legally justified to invoke S. 258 of stop the proceeding as the case was instituted upon complaint. But them sitting in this revisional jurisdiction and while exercising powers under S. 482 Cr. P. C. The proceeding may be quashed if I find that the second contention of Mr. Ghosh cannot be sustained.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.