YENDURI RADHAKRISHNAMURTHY Vs. G MAHALATCHAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition preferred against the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Krishna, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 24 of 1956 by which he directed as follows:

(2.) In this case, the complainant filed a com-plaint making various allegations therein under Sections 323, 325, 447 and 34, I. P. C. In that complaint there is an allegation that the first blow which the 2nd accused dealt on the left cheek of the complainant resulted in one of her teeth dropping down. This allegation prima facie implies that the tooth dropped down having been dislodged out of its position-under the impact of the blow given. Since there is an allegation of dislocation of the tooth on account of the violence employed or criminal force used, the allegation would prima facie be regarded as disclosing the offence under Section 325, I. P. C. This may be the reason why the Magistrate at that time took the complaint on file without any amendment of the sections on which the complaint was based.

(3.) Vehement arguments were advanced before the succeeding Stationary Sub-Magistrate that the previous Magistrate intended to take it on file under Section 325 also and therefore the summons procedure followed by the Magistrate in dealing with the case was wrong and without jurisdiction. The Magistrate curiously enough allowed himself to be influenced by certain questions, which had been put under Section 242, Criminal P. C., at the time of examination of the accused and from the omission therefrom of a question relating to the tooth concluded that it was not the intention of the Magistrate, who originally took it on file to take it under Section 325 also. It is rather a specious argument, which deserves no consideration, The Additional District Magistrate took the view that this was a case of implied dismissal of the case under Section 203, Crimi-nal P. C., and he thought that he had jurisdiction to deal with the matter and directed as indicated above without giving any directions as to what procedure the Magistrate should follow in the matter. This is very unsatisfactory; in the first place, there is no dismissal of a complaint and when the complaint was taken on file and dealt with there is no question of Section 203 coming into operation. An implied order of dismissal is unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Additional District Magistrate had, therefore, no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition. Accordingly, the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate in tills case is quashed.