SHEIKH SIDDIK Vs. SHEIKH CHAKAURI KHANSAMAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule calling on the District Magistrate of Manbhoom to show cause why the order of the Sessions Judge directing a further inquiry should not be set aside, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to order further inquiry against the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner.

(2.) It appears that one Chakauri Khansamah made a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the Deputy Magistrate of Singhbhoom, on the 21st November 1911, and the Deputy Magistrate passed the following order on his petition: "Sub-Inspector, Chaibassa, to inquire and report, under Section 406, Indian Penal Coda, by the 1st proximo." On the 28th November 1911, apparently after considering the Police officer s report, the Deputy Magistrate passed the following order: Enter mistake of law. Section 406, Indian Penal Code." The opposite party then, on the 1st December, put in another complaint before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate sent this to the Deputy Magistrate for judicial inquiry and report; and after considering his report, he directed that the case should be entered as false and as the outcome of a civil dispute. Then Chakauri Khansamah applied to the Sessions Judge, who ordered a further inquiry under Section 437, Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) It appears to us, having regard to the provisions of Section 435, Sub-section (4), Criminal procedure code, that a further inquiry should not have been ordered. The decisions in the cases of Girish Chandra Bose v. Emperor 6 C.W.N. 638 and Nagendra Nath Sen v. Mr. Korb 8 C.W.N. 456; 1 Cr. L.J. 355 indicate that the Deputy Magistrate s order of the 28th November 1911, which we have quoted above, must be regarded as an order dismissing Chakauri Khansamah s complaint. When, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to revise that order and to have a further inquiry made, it must be taken, we think, that he was acting under Section 435, Criminal Procedure Code. The case having been disposed of by a competent authority, it could not have been withdrawn by the District Magistrate to his own file under Section 528, Criminal Procedure Code, and we do not see under what other provisions of the Code he could have directed this further inquiry.