Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)
Anoop Lohia & Anr. vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 31 May, 2017 cites

Sreeman Kumara Tirumalraja Bahadur, ... vs Sowcar Lodd Govind Doss Krishna Doss on 30 July, 1906

A similar opinion has also been expressed in Ganesh v. Venkataswara [(1964) 2 Cr LJ 100] where, relying on Raja of Karvetnagar v. Sowear Lodd Govind Doss [(1906) ILR 29 Mad 561] the Mysore High Court observed that law and order being the concern of the police it is but natural that the Magistrate should either be moved by the police or if moved by a private party, he should call for a police report regarding the likelihood of breach of peace. But the High Court of Madras in the case of Raja of Karvetnagar [(1906) ILR 29 Mad 561] , did not lay down any such proposition but merely sounded a note of caution that in the absence of a police report the statements of an interested party should not be relied on without caution and without corroboration the proposition that the Magistrate before proceeding under Section 145(1) must, as a rule, call for a police WP(CRL)1968/2015 Page 9 of 15 report where he is moved by a private party or that the absence of a police report is a sure indication of the absence of possibility of breach of peace, is not warranted by the clear language of the section which permits the Magistrate to initiate proceedings either on the police report or "on other information". The words "other information" are wide enough to include an application by a private party. The jurisdiction under Section 145 being, no doubt, of an emergency nature, the Magistrate must act with caution but that does not mean that where on an application by one of the parties to the dispute he is satisfied that the requirements of the section are existent, he cannot initiate proceedings without a police report. The view taken in the aforesaid two decisions unnecessarily and without any warrant from the language of sub-section (1) limits the discretion of the Magistrate and renders the words "other information" either superfluous or qualifies them to mean other information verified by the police. In our view, once the Magistrate, having examined the applicant on oath, was satisfied that his application disclosed the existence of the dispute and the likelihood of breach of peace, there was no bar against his acting under Section 145(1).
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

K. Ganesh And Ors. vs K. Venkataswara Iyer on 27 June, 1963

A similar opinion has also been expressed in Ganesh v. Venkataswara [(1964) 2 Cr LJ 100] where, relying on Raja of Karvetnagar v. Sowear Lodd Govind Doss [(1906) ILR 29 Mad 561] the Mysore High Court observed that law and order being the concern of the police it is but natural that the Magistrate should either be moved by the police or if moved by a private party, he should call for a police report regarding the likelihood of breach of peace. But the High Court of Madras in the case of Raja of Karvetnagar [(1906) ILR 29 Mad 561] , did not lay down any such proposition but merely sounded a note of caution that in the absence of a police report the statements of an interested party should not be relied on without caution and without corroboration the proposition that the Magistrate before proceeding under Section 145(1) must, as a rule, call for a police WP(CRL)1968/2015 Page 9 of 15 report where he is moved by a private party or that the absence of a police report is a sure indication of the absence of possibility of breach of peace, is not warranted by the clear language of the section which permits the Magistrate to initiate proceedings either on the police report or "on other information". The words "other information" are wide enough to include an application by a private party. The jurisdiction under Section 145 being, no doubt, of an emergency nature, the Magistrate must act with caution but that does not mean that where on an application by one of the parties to the dispute he is satisfied that the requirements of the section are existent, he cannot initiate proceedings without a police report. The view taken in the aforesaid two decisions unnecessarily and without any warrant from the language of sub-section (1) limits the discretion of the Magistrate and renders the words "other information" either superfluous or qualifies them to mean other information verified by the police. In our view, once the Magistrate, having examined the applicant on oath, was satisfied that his application disclosed the existence of the dispute and the likelihood of breach of peace, there was no bar against his acting under Section 145(1).
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 6 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1