//
archives

First Information Report

This tag is associated with 32 posts

When the Magistrate can add additional sections himself on the a petition of Complainant /informant after filing a charge sheet by police ? = If F.I.R. was registered on a private complaint – a Magistrate can add additional sections after filing charge sheet by police : If F.I.R. was registered directly by police through information, a Magistrate can not add additional sections after filing charge sheet , only trial court under sec.211 at the time of trial add the same : STATE OF GUJARAT ..Appellant Versus GIRISH RADHAKRISHNAN VARDE ..Respondent = http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp

  When the Magistrate can add additional sections himself on the a petition of Complainant /informant after filing a charge sheet by police ? =   If  F.I.R. was registered on a private complaint – a Magistrate can add additional sections after filing charge sheet by police : If F.I.R. was registered directly by police through information, … Continue reading

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity.P.C.) = Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120(b) IPC = Fraud played on Bank in collusion with Bank Officers for 2.51 crores – Criminal case – Charge sheet filed – Earlier Quash petitions are withdrawn, dismissed and a direction was also given for speedy trial – reached final – Again for Quash – Single judge allowed as it is a civil case – amount can be recovered through civil means – Apex court allowed the appeal filed by state and set aside the orders of High court stating that Alternative relief for recovery of amount is not a ground for quashing the F.I.R and Charge sheet and with out challenging the earlier orders = STATE THROUH DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ANR. … RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APEPAL NO. 1959 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.)NO.1501 OF 2010) TAMIL NADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD. … APPELLANT VS. STATE AND ORS. … RESPONDENTS = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40986

Section  482  of  the  Code  of Criminal Procedure (for  brevity.P.C.) = Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120(b) IPC = Fraud played on Bank in collusion with Bank Officers for 2.51 crores – Criminal case – Charge sheet filed – Earlier Quash petitions are withdrawn, dismissed and a direction was also given for speedy trial – reached final … Continue reading

Theft of a car – Immediate issuing of notice of theft is must = No notice was given immediately after the theft was occurred so the complainant is not entitled to any insurance claim = New India Assurance Co. Ltd.-vs- Ram Avtar= Published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00131111121816967FA14109.html

Theft of a car – Immediate issuing of notice of theft is must = No notice was given immediately after the theft was occurred so the complainant is not entitled to any insurance claim = It appeared that the Respondent/Complainant took almost one month to give intimation about the alleged theft with a view to hide various facts and avoid detection of the … Continue reading

whether under Section 154 CrPC, a police officer is bound to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is made out or he (police officer) has an option, discretion or latitude of conducting some kind of preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR.= Lalita Kumari …. Petitioner (s) Versus Govt. of U.P. & Ors. …. Respondent(s)= Published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40960

whether under Section 154 CrPC,         a police officer is bound to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is made out or he (police officer) has an option, discretion or latitude  of conducting some kind of preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR.=            In view of the aforesaid discussion, … Continue reading

One accused is acquitted due to non-mention of his name in FIR and also no attributions or overt acts against him ; Death penalty converted in imprisonment to life = Principle of prudence, enunciated by Bachan Singh is sound counsel on this count which shall stand us in good stead – whenever in the given circumstances, there is difference of opinion with respect to any sentencing prop (sic)/rationale, or subjectivity involved in the determining factors, or lack of thoroughness in complying with the sentencing procedure, it would be advisable to fall in favour of the “rule” of life imprisonment rather than invoking the “exception” of death punishment.”= In the present case, even if we decide to ignore the similar deficiencies in the prosecution, and look into the oral evidence which has come on record, the case of prosecution against appellant no: 2, Naresh Paswan is rather weak. His name was not mentioned in the FIR. PW-2 Birendra Singh who is an injured witness, though states in the dock that he had seen the appellants slitting the throats, he failed to identify Naresh Paswan in Court. None of the other witnesses including PW-3 Lawlesh Singh, who is another injured witness, have attributed any role to him. None of them said that he was a member of MCC. It is material to note that Madhusudan who was named at Sr. No.5 in the FIR also faced a similar allegation. It was PW-2 Birendra Singh who named Madhusudan as one of the accused who slit the throats of the deceased, but had failed to identify him in the dock. In the absence of other witnesses throwing any light on his participation in the occurrence, Madhusudan was acquitted by the learned designated Judge. = (i) In the circumstances, Crl. Appeal No.791 of 2009 is allowed in part. The judgment convicting appellant no.2, accused Naresh Paswan is set- aside, and he will stand acquitted. He is acquitted of the offences for which he was charged, and it is ordered that he be released forthwith if not required in any other case. (ii) As far as appellant nos.1 and 3, accused Vyas Ram and Bugal Mochi are concerned, although their conviction under the offences for which they were charged is upheld, the death sentence awarded to them is commuted to imprisonment for life, which is to mean the rest of their natural life. (iii) Consequently, the Death Reference Case (R) No.2 of 2011 filed by State of Bihar is hereby dismissed.

 published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40818     REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   Criminal Appeal No.791 OF 2009   Vyas Ram @ Vyas Kahar & Ors. … Appellants   Versus   State of Bihar … Respondent   With   Death Reference Case (R) No.2 of 2011   State of Bihar … Applicant … Continue reading

Inquiry by CBI – rejected due to delay – with liberty to file fresh application on fresh grounds if any = the High Court has rejected the prayer of the appellant to transfer the investigation of his case/complaint to Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the `CBI’). – His request to the Judicial Magistrate in regard to medical examination of the injuries which had been caused to him was rejected. = In sum and substance, firstly, the facts and circumstances of the instant case do not present special features warranting transfer of investigation to CBI, and that too, at such a belated stage where the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted before the competent criminal court. The allegations are only against the then RDO who might have been transferred to various districts during these past 15 years. Similarly various other police officials might have investigated the case and it is difficult to assume that every police official was under his influence and all of them acted with malafide intention. In view of the earlier order of this Court dated 2.9.2008, no subsequent development has been brought to the notice of the court which could warrant interference by superior courts and transfer the investigation to CBI. 15. In view of the above, we do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

   published in         http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40664 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1167 of 2013 Prof. K.V. Rajendran …Appellant   Versus   Superintendent of Police, CBCID South …Respondents Zone, Chennai & Ors. J U D G M E N T   Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.   1. This … Continue reading

Section 193 Cr.P.C. =Constitution Bench for consideration. 4. The questions which require the consideration of the Constitution Bench are as follows: i) Does the Committing Magistrate have any other role to play after committing the case to the Court of Session on finding from the police report that the case was triable by the Court of Session? ii) If the Magistrate disagrees with the police report and is convinced that a case had also been made out for trial against the persons who had been placed in column 2 of the report, does he have the jurisdiction to issue summons against them also in order to include their names, along with Nafe Singh, to stand trial in connection with the case made out in the police report? iii) Having decided to issue summons against the Appellants, was the Magistrate required to follow the procedure of a complaint case and to take evidence before committing them to the Court of Session to stand trial or whether he was justified in issuing summons against them without following such procedure? iv) Can the Session Judge issue summons under Section 193 Cr.P.C. as a Court of original jurisdiction? v) Upon the case being committed to the Court of Session, could the Session Judge issue summons separately under Section 193 of the Code or would he have to wait till the stage under Section 319 of the Code was reached in order to take recourse thereto? vi) Was Ranjit Singh’s case (supra), which set aside the decision in Kishun Singh’s case(supra), rightly decided or not? = “193. Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session. – Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code.”= whether the decision in Ranjit Singh’s case (supra) was correct or not in Kishun Singh’s case (supra), is answered by holding that the decision in Kishun Singh’s case was the correct decision and the learned Session Judge, acting as a Court of original jurisdiction, could issue summons under Section 193 on the basis of the records transmitted to him as a result of the committal order passed by the learned Magistrate. 31. Consequent upon our aforesaid decision, the view taken by the Referring Court is accepted and it is held that the decision in the case of Kishun Singh vs. State of Bihar and not the decision in Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab lays down the law correctly in respect of the powers of the Session Court after committal of the case to it by the learned Magistrate under Section 209 Cr.P.C. 32. The matter is remitted to the Three-Judge Bench to dispose of the pending Criminal Appeals in accordance with the views expressed by us in this judgment.

 Reported in  http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40579 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 148 of 2003   1 2 DHARAM PAL & ORS. … APPELLANTS VS.   2 STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. … RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 865 of 2004, 1334 of 2005 and 537 of 2006     J … Continue reading

Acquittal of murder case = It is a well settled principle of law that when the genesis and the manner of the incident is doubtful, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Inasmuch as the prosecution failed to establish the circumstances in which the appellant was alleged to have fired at the deceased, the entire story has to be rejected. 19) In the light of the above discussion, though we are unable to accept the contention relating to the right of private defence as pleaded by learned counsel for the appellant, on going through the entire prosecution case, coupled with the reasoning of the High Court accepting the claim of the other accused, i.e., A-2 and A-3, the entire prosecution case is to be rejected as unbelievable. In such circumstances, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt, accordingly, we set aside his conviction and sentence.

published in          http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40570         REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 889 OF 2009   Arshad Hussain …. Appellant(s) Versus State of Rajasthan … Respondent(s) 2     J U D G M E N T   P.Sathasivam,J. 1) This appeal has … Continue reading

Extra-ordinary delay even charge sheet not filed due to Non- Availability of original records of misappropriation – for the same offence the accused was exonerated in departmental proceedings – FIR is quashed = It is not disputed by the respondent that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant with regard to identical charges made in the FIR. It was alleged that as per CAG Inquiry Report dated 15th December, 2008 Rs.4,39,617/- has been misappropriated by the appellant, all the copies of original bills and documents are available in the office of CAG and the original documents are available in the office of the Directorate, State Literacy Programme. In the departmental proceeding identical allegation was made that as per the Inquiry Officer Report, an embezzlement of Rs.4,39,617/- was found to be done by the appellant. 32. During the investigation inspite of several requests made by the Investigating Agency (Police), the records in respect of allegation were not produced. No evidence came against the appellant-Lokesh Kumar Jain, from the file of the education department. As the case was pending since long and there was no possibility of availability of record in the near future, FR No.67/2000 against the appellant was filed before the CJM, Dausa. The CJM, Dausa by his order dated 18th November, 2000 on perusal of Final Report, in exercise of power conferred under Section 156(3) Cr.PC directed the SHO, Dausa to re-investigate the case with the assistance of complainant and to procure the original records. Inspite of order dated 18th November, 2000, for nine years, records were not made available, as apparent from the Inquiry Report dated 15th December,2008. There is nothing on the record, even by way of counter affidavit filed before this Court to show that record has now been traced to make it available to the Investigating Agency. There is no probability of finding out original documents or evidence mentioned in the counter affidavit. Though, delay has been alleged on the part of the appellant, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the appellant caused delay in the matter of investigation. On the other hand, the silence on the part of the respondent regarding availability of the original record or other evidence before the Investigating Agency shows that the delay caused due to inaction on the part of the respondent. Therefore, in our view, keeping investigation pending for further period will be futile as the respondent including Directorate for the State Literacy Programme is not sure whether original records can be procured for investigation and to bring home the charges. Considering the fact that delay in the present case is caused by the respondent, the constitutional guarantee of a speedy investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is thereby violated and as the appellant has already been exonerated in the departmental proceedings for identical charges, keeping the case pending against the appellant for investigation, is unwarranted, the FIR deserves to be quashed. 34. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the FIR No.10/2000 lodged in Police Station, Dausa as against the appellant is hereby quashed.

  published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40537   REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 888 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(Crl.)NO.4513 OF 2012) LOKESH KUMAR JAIN … APPELLANT VERUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN … RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T 1 SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave granted. This appeal has … Continue reading

JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF GRAMA SABHAS / NYAYALAYAS – NEWLY FORMED FOR QUICK DISPOSAL OF CASES =whether in view of Sections 4(2), 5, 44-51, 71 and 77 etc. of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which give complete powers to the Gram Panchayat to take cognizance of criminal cases, accept complaints, conduct enquiries, summon witnesses, proceed with the trial, pass orders of conviction, sentence and compensation, the impugned proceedings initiated under the IPC is sustainable? On the other hand, it is the stand of the respondent-State that in view of serious allegations against the appellants who cheated the complainant’s son and committed fraud by taking his money, in spite of Section 44(3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the prosecuting authority is entitled to proceed under the provisions of the IPC. = (i) There is no bar for investigating any offence by the police including the offences mentioned in the Schedule II of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. (ii) The investigation would include the power to arrest and the ordinary procedure under the Code will govern the entire proceedings. (iii) Till the stage of completion of investigation, Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction at all. (iv) After the report of police under Section 173, the Magistrate shall transfer the case for trial to Gram Panchayat or to any other subordinate court to him. (v) Unless a case is transferred to Gram Panchayat under Section 45 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the ‘Gram Panchayat’ does not get any jurisdiction over the said case/investigation unless the offence is one mentioned in Section 47(3) of the said Act. (vi) However, it is open to any person/complainant to directly approach the Gram Panchayat by submitting a written complaint. In that case also, if it is a cognizable offence, there is no bar for the police to investigate the matter. = Under these circumstances, we hold that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the investigation is to be conducted by the police authorities only and the offence of Section 420 IPC where the allegations are of a serious nature and the appellants has duped of Rs. 30 lakhs from the complainant, should be tried by the regular criminal court only and not by the Gram Panchayat.

PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40486 Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 811 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6746 of 2012) Sharanjit Kaur & Anr. …. Appellant(s) Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent(s) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 812 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9690 of … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,870,166 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,904 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com