CHAMMA Vs. LAXMICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the City Magistrate, Bangalore, passed on 6-11-1969 in C. C. No. III of 1969 on the file of his Court, dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner. The operative portion of the order is as follows:-

(2.) Two contentions were advanced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The first contention was that the Magistrate ought to have examined the complainant on oath after the complaint was filed and that the Magistrate has erred in not examining the complainant on oath. It was submitted that the provision of Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code, is mandatory and Omission to examine the complainant on Oath is an illegality and the order of the Magistrate is liable to be set aside on that ground.

(3.) The second contention was that the Magistrate has erred in dismissing a private complaint without giving the complainant an opportunity to prove her case in spite of her counsel submitting that the petitioner had evidence both oral and documentary, to support her case. After a perusal of the record, I think, there appears to be no force in the first contention.