Decided on May 11,1900



Prinsep, J - (1.) After investigation, the police reported that the complaint of Mahadeo Singh, in respect of theft of certain documents, was false. On the 30 of April Mahadeo Singh appeared before the District Magistrate and made a complaint asking to have the matter fried. The District Magistrate deferred passing orders on the matter, until he was in receipt of the police report, and then, on the 6 May, he ordered the complainant to show cause within seven days why he should not be prosecuted under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, and at the same time he made over the complaint of Mahadeo Singh to the Deputy Magistrate for judicial inquiry and report. On the 10 June, the Deputy Magistrate ordered notice to the complainant to appear before his Court with evidence on the 30 June, and after examining the complainant and his witnesses, he reported to the District Magistrate that the complaint was, in his opinion, false. The District Magistrate on this passed an order under Section 476 of the Criminal P. C. directing the petitioner to be prosecuted for an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. This matter was then considered on a rule granted by this Court, and, inasmuch as the District Magistrate had ordered the complainant, Mahadeo Singh, to be prosecuted under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code for having made a false complaint without ever examining him, the order under Section 476 was set aside.
(2.) The Magistrate has renewed these proceedings and has examined the complainant, and on that examination he has again passed an order directing the complainant to be prosecuted under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) A second rule, which is now before us, has been granted, and we have again considered this matter. It has been represented to us, and it would appear from the Magistrate's judgment, which was before us and which was not withheld from us, as the Magistrate in his explanation seems to think, that the Magistrate has proceeded entirely on the statement of the complainant. The Magistrate now represents in his explanation that he acted on the police report and also on the report of the Magistrate, who had held the judicial inquiry, and he further assures us that he had also considered the evidence recorded by that Magistrate before passing the order under Section 476 of the Criminal P. C..;

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