RAJANGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision sought to be preferred against the order of the learned District Magistrate of Tanjore in C. R. P. No. 11 of 1957, setting aside the order dismissing the complaint in C, C. No. 448 of 1957 under Section 203, Cr. PC by the Second Class Magistrate, Tiruvayaru.

(2.) THE facts are : Dharmaraja Bapu Reddiar filed a private complaint against two persons for an offence under Section 498, I, P. C. This complaint was taken on file as C. C. No. 23 of 1957. Nino witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant. Then the enquiry was posted for the examination of the accused on 29-3-1957. On that date the complainant was absent. The complaint was dismissed under Section 259, Cr. P. C. Then the complainant on the same facts filed a second complaint which was numbered as C. C. No. 448 of 1957. The Sub-Magistrate discussed the evidence already taken on the prior complaint and taking into consideration certain facts appearing in the case-diary it will be remembered that in this case there was no reference under Section 202, Cr. PC but the party had preferred a complaint after the police had refused to take action dismissed the complaint. To quote his own words On a very careful review of the evidence let in in this case already, I have no hesitation to hold that no case for 'in offence under Section 498 has been made out. . . I therefore take this case on file under Section 498 and dismiss it under Section 203, Cr. PC The learned District Magistrate was moved in revision and he following the decision in Venkatasubba Ayyar v. Soundararaja Ayyangar A. I. R. 1929 Mad 260 (A), held that the procedure adopted by the learned Sub-Magistrate was wholly illegal and he should not have disposed of the present complaint on the evidence already recorded by him and he should not have relied on any part of the case-diary as substantive evidence, and ordered further inquiry by the Sub-Magistrate, Tanjore, de novo according to law in the light of the observations made by him. Hence tills revision.

(3.) THERE cannot be the slightest doubt that this revision petition is thoroughly frivolous and the further enquiry ordered by the learned District Magistrate is irreproachable. Here are my reasons.