Trace Your Case

Categories
Investigation

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335

ISSUE:

Whether the allegations in themselves are enough to constitute a cognizable offense and give the power of investigation to the police?

Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings and acted under the ambit of 226 of the Constitution and sections 482, 154 and 157, and to what extent the orders suffer from legal infirmity?

RULE:

The exercise of this extraordinary inherent power wasn’t justified and there was a definite constitution of a cognizable offense thereby justifying registration of a case. The stage at which the case was on, it was too soon to decide the relevance and reliability of the facts alleged and no negative inference can be drawn before any investigation and inquiry is carried out. Therefore, it cannot be expected out of police officials to necessarily reply to questions without any investigation being started.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Investigation

Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1 

ISSUE:

Whether the police officer should compulsorily register an FIR under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to Cognizable offense or, the police officer, in order to check the authenticity of the complaint can conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR?

RULE:

Section 154(1) is mandatory in nature as the use of the word “shall” leaves out no room for discretion by the police. The use of this word tells us about the legislative intention. The legislative makers have not use words like ‘reasonable complaint’ and ‘credible information’ under section 154(1). The absence of these words shows that ‘reasonableness’ or ‘credibility’ of the received information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. Use of the word “shall” does not mean police does not have any discretion. If it is a fake case, the FIR would become useless in the end. In that case, the police officer would submit a closure report to the magistrate.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Investigation

State of WB v. Swapan Kumar Guha (1982) 1 SCC 561

ISSUE:

Whether it can be said that in absence of an allegation, the reason to suspect under section 157 of CrPC, will justify the investigation undertaken by the authorities?

RULE:

It is wrong to suppose that the police have an unfettered discretion to commence an investigation under Section 157 of the Code.

Their right of inquiry is conditioned by the existence of a reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offense and they cannot, reasonably, have reason so to suspect unless the F.I.R., prima facie, discloses the commission of such offense. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Investigation

Yanub Sheikh v. State of WB (2013) 6 SCC 428 

ISSUE:

Whether a second FIR, for the same incident/occurrence hit by the provisions of Section 162 of CrPC?

RULE:

The second FIR about the same occurrence between the same persons and with similarity of scope of investigation, cannot be registered and by applying the test of similarity, it may then be hit by the proviso to Section 162 of the Code.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Investigation

Nandini Satpathy v. PL Dani (1978) 2 SCC 424 

ISSUE:

What are the boundaries of section 161 of CrPC? Do answers which are of inculpatory characteristics that have a probable chance of exposing a person while an investigation or is in the trail are allowed?

Do a suspected accused have a right to sanction their right to be silent who has committed a criminal offense?

RULE:

To be a witness against oneself is not confined to a particular offence regarding which the questioning is made but extends to other offences about which the accused has a reasonable apprehension of implication from his answer. This conclusion also flows from ‘tendency to be exposed to a criminal charge’. ‘A criminal charge’ covers any criminal charge than under investigation or trial or imminently threatens the accused.’

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Investigation

Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana (2001) 7 SCC 148 

ISSUE:

Whether the accused can demand his statement to be recorded before the Magistrate?

RULE:

If the Magistrate does not know that he is concerned in a case for which investigation has been commenced under the provisions of Chapter XII it is not permissible for him to record the confession. If any person simply barges into the court and demands the Magistrate to record his confession as he has committed a cognizable offence, the course open to the Magistrate is to inform the police about it.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now