A.R. Palanisami Gounder vs Bagavathi Gounder

Horwill, J.—The complainant complained to the Magistrate that he had filed a suit in the Civil Court against the first accused with respect to

his land, that he had filed an application in the suit for attachment of the standing crops on the land and for distraint of the first accused''s-cattle, and

that the petitioner, joining with the first accused, had removed the harvested crops and the cattle to his own field and claimed them as his with the

object of preventing the Receiver from taking possession of this property. The Magistrate came to the conclusion that an offence punishable u/s

421, Indian Penal Code, had been made out against the first accused, but not against the petitioner. The complainant took the matter to the District

Magistrate in revision, who very rightly remarked that the allegations in the complaint and in the sworn statement, which were the only material on

which the Magistrate had to act, implicated the petitioner equally with the first accused. He therefore ordered the Magistrate to make further

enquiry into the case against the petitioner as well as against the first accused. In this Court, the petitioner contends that the offence committed was

one punishable u/s 206, Indian Penal Code, which requires a complaint by the Civil Court.

The wording of Section 206, Indian Penal Code, is very much the same as that of Section 421, Indian Penal Code, except that the fraudulent

removal, etc., in Section 206. Indian Penal Code, has to be with the intention of preventing property from being taken by some process of Court.

It is argued for the complainant that it is open to a person in filing a complaint to ignore a part of the offence and to file his complaint with regard to

the remainder. I do not agree that it is open to a Magistrate to ignore such essential ingredients of a complaint. When the offence complained of

obviously had relation to a Civil Court and was intended to render fruitless the proceedings of the Court, it is against public policy that a Magistrate

should take cognizance of a case that the Legislature clearly intended should be taken cognizance of only on the motion of the Civil Court

concerned. The Magistrate therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

Mr. Somasundaram for the complainant points out that it was quite open to the petitioner to raise these points before the Magistrate. The parties

are however now all represented in this Court; and as it is clear that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of this case except on the

complaint of the Civil Court concerned, it is desirable that the proceedings should be quashed and the complaint ordered to be returned to the

complainant, who may move the Civil Court to take action if he is so advised. It is ordered accordingly.