LEKHRAM AGARWALLA AND ORS. Vs. PANNALAL AGARWALLA AND ANR.
LAWS(GAU)-1951-5-2
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on May 16,1951

Lekhram Agarwalla And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Pannalal Agarwalla And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

THADANI, J. - (1.) THIS is an application Under Section 439, Criminal P.C. seeking to quash a complaint filed by one Pannalal Agarwalla Under Sections 420, 406, 120B Penal Code against some 10 persons, some of whom are women. The complaint filed by Pannalal is in these terms: Sir, Accused are related to each other. On the 1st week, of March, there was a talk for marriage of the daughter of accused 1 with Govindaram, brother of complainant. According to custom, with the brother of complainant, I went to Nazira & the accused expressed to give her in marriage & the girl also agreed. On 16 -3 -50, accused 1, 3 & 5 came to the house of the complainant & finalised the marriage proposal & fixed 27 -4 -50 for marriage, & on that day Rs. 9000/ - in cash & ornaments of 60 tolas of gold & clothes & other things were arranged to be given & on that very day Rs. 7000/ - was paid in cash. On 25 -4 -1950 the complainant, with some others, went to the house of the girl according to custom & delivered ornaments of 62 1/2 tolas of gold (price Rs. 7575/ -) to accused 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 & also gave clothes worth Rs. 900/ -, silver ornaments worth Rs. 50/ -, one watch worth Rs. 105/ -, & the accused accepted those things &, according to custom, honoured the complainant. Besides that, on 19 -4 -50. articles worth Rs. 900/1/ - & cash Rs. 295/ - were also given. On 27 -4 -50, the complainant, with a marriage party of 50 other persons, went to the house of the accused for marriage, but the accused fraudulently & collusively already arranged to give marriage of the daughter of accused 1 with accused 10, & at about 2 o'clock:, the accused stated that there was no arrangement for marriage with the brother of the complainant & denied receipt of cash & ornaments from the complainant. At last the accused brought a Magistrate & a Police & drove away the complainant & his party & misappropriated the ornaments & cash & clothing. The accused entered into a conspiracy to do this from before, & the complainant was highly insulted & put to great loss. So, it is prayed that warrant of arrest may be issued against the accused & the articles be recovered from the house of the accused by a search warrant &, on recovery, the articles may be given in custody of the complainant.
(2.) IN the matter of quashing a complaint, a High Court does not ordinarily interfere unless it is satisfied on the face of the complaint that no offence is disclosed.Manifestly this is not a complaint which falls within that category.
(3.) MR . J.C. Medhi for the accused petitioners has, however, argued that the complaint in this case was disposed of by an order of discharge passed by the Magistrate on 10 -6 -50, and that the learned Magistrate, therefore, had no jurisdiction to rehear the original complaint on a petition made by the complainant, having regard to the provisions of Section 436, Criminal P.C. While it is true that the learned Magistrate has stated in his order, dated 10 -6 -50, that the accused are discharged Under Section 253, Criminal P.C. nevertheless it is manifest from the orderitself that the order cannot be regarded as having been passed Under Section 253, Cr. P.C. The order reads: The complainant is absent & takes no steps. The accused are discharged Under Section 253, Cr. P.C. Under Sub -section (1) of Section 253, Cr. P.C. a Magistrate is competent to discharge an accused person if after taking all the evidence referred to in Section 252, Cr. P.C. & after making such examination (if any) of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary, he finds that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction. Manifestly the learned Magistrate did not act Under Section 253(1), Cr. P.C. Equally manifestly the learned Magistrate did not act under Sub -section (2) of Section 253, Cr. P.C. for, nowhere is it stated in the order that the charge is groundless.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.