CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- Premnath v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1599
A civil judge cannot be invested with the powers of Additional Sessions Judge unless he is appointed as Additional Sessions Judge under Section 9 of the Code.
- Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 443 Amesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273
The law of arrest is one of balancing individual rights, liberties and privileges, on one hand and individual duties, obligations and responsibilities on the other hand.No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. No arrest should be made without reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fide of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. A person accused of offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police unless conditions mentioned in Section 41(1)(b) have been fulfilled.
- Mowu v. Superintendent Special Jail, Nowgong, Assam, (1971) 3 SCC 936
Saptawana v. State of Assam, (1972)4 SCC (N) 945
Naga people’s movement of Human Rights v. Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC 109
Supreme Court held that though the provisions of Cr.P.C. are not applicable in certain districts of the State of Nagaland, it only means that the rules of Cr.P.C. would not apply but the authorities would be governed by the substance of these rules.
- Yamunabai v. Anantrao, AIR 1988 SC 644, Savita ben v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2005 SC 1089
The term ‘wife’ means legally wedded wife. Second wife cannot claim maintenance.
- D. Velusamy v. D Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469
Woman who is in marriage like relationship, though not legally married, can claim maintenance. The court held that not all live-in-relationships will amount to relationships in nature of marriage. ‘Relationship in nature of marriage’ must fulfil following conditions:
(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as a kinto spouses;
(b) They must be of legal age to marry;
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage;
(d) They must have voluntarily co habited for a significant period of time.
- Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar, (2019) 11 SCC 491
For fulfilling true spirit of beneficial legislation of Section PC strict proof of marriage is not required. Long cohabitation between woman and man may lead to presumption of marriage entitling maintenance for woman and children born to them. This presumption is a rebuttable presumption.
- Anita Thakur v. State of J&K, (2016) 15 SCC 525
Before ordering for use of force to disperse unlawful assembly, Magistrate needs to satisfy himself that:
- There is an unlawful assembly with object of committing violence or assembly of five or more persons likely to cause disturbance to public peace;
- Executive Magistrate must order for unlawful assembly to disperse; and
- Even after such order unlawful assembly does not disperse.
- H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196
The investigation of offence generally consists of
(i) proceeding on the spot;
(ii) as certainment of facts and circumstances of the case;
(iii) discovery and arrest of offence;
(iv) collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence. It may consist of examination of various per sons and search and seizure of various things.
(v) formation of opinion whether on the basis of materials collected the accused has committed the offence or not.
- State of M.P. v. Chhaakki Lak, (2019) 12 SCC 326
Satpal v. State of Haryana, (2018) 6 SCC 610
Latesh v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 3 SCC 66
FIR is not an encyclopedia requiring every minute details of occurrence to be mentioned therein.
- Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, 2013 (13) SCALE 559
Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is needed in such situation. However, in certain types of cases preliminary inquiry can be conducted before registration of FIR. These cases are:
- Matrimonial/family disputes
- Commercial offences
- Medical negligence cases
- Corruption cases
- Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal proceedings.
- Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 443
Preliminary inquiry before registration of FIR may be held in cases relating to matrimonial/family disputes. Preliminary inquiry does not mean to verify the veracity of information but to ascertain whether the information discloses any cognizable offence.
- AR. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak,(1992) 1 SCC 225
P. Ramchandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578
The court shall not interfere in the investigation proceedings as that is the prerogative of the executive.
- Hussainara Khatoon (5) v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 108
It is the duty of the Magistrate to inform the accused that he has a right to be released on bail under Section 167 proviso.
- Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India, AIR 2016 SC 4136
It was held that an accused is entitled to get a copy of the FIR at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of the Cr. P.C. FIR must be uploaded on Police website within 24 hours unless the case is sensitive in nature i.e., like sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism.
- Yogesh Singh v. Mahabir Singh, (2017) 11 SCC 195
Anjan Das gupta v. State of W.B., (2017) 11 SCC 222
In terms of Section 157, the police officer concerned is required to forward a copy of FIR to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence promptly and without any delay. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever there is some delay in sending FIR to the Magistrate, the prosecution version becomes unreliable. If the FIR was recorded promptly and investigation has started on the basis of FIR then in the absence of any prejudice to the accused it cannot be said that the investigation was tainted and prosecution story is unreliable.
- Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India, (2018) 6 SCC 72
Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh, (2017) 11 SCC 195
Inquest report is not a substantive piece of evidence. Its purpose is limited to a scertain nature of injuries and cause of death. Its object is to as certain whether death is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or caused by animals or machinery etc. It states the manner in which or by what weapon or instruments injuries appears to have been inflicted.
- Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others v. The State of Gujarat, 2019 (3) ALT Cri 284
Magistrate can invoke power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C even at post-cognizance stage.
- M.L. Sethi v. R.L. Kapur, AIR 1967 SC 528
The expression ‘taking cognizance’ has not been defined in the Code. The expression is used to indicate a point when the Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiate criminal proceedings.
- Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 9 SCALE 542
The Magistrate in exercise of its power under Section 190 can refuse to take cognizance if material on record warrants so. Magistrate performs judicial function but he cannot appreciate the evidence on record to reach the conclusion. It is imper miscible for the Magistrate to weigh the evidence and balance the probability of the case at this stage.
- Mohd. Yusuf v. Afaq Jahan, (2006) 1 SCC 627
Before taking cognizance of an offence the Magistrate can direct investigation under Section 156(3). It is open for the Magistrate to direct police officer to register FIR. Even if Magistrate does not say so in many words while directing investigation under Section 156(3) that FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the concerned officer-in-charge of police station to register FIR.
- Minu Kumari v. State, AIR 2006 SC 1937
Where the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance and drop the proceedings then notice to the informant and opportunity of hearing must be granted.
- Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru, (2010) 2 SCC 631
The order of dismissal of complaint is neither an order of acquittal nor an order of discharge, therefore, principle incorporated under Section 300 is not applicable. The Supreme Court held that only in exceptional circumstances the second complaint can be entertained. These circumstances may be
(1) Previous order of dismissal was passed on incomplete record;
(2) Previous order was result of misunderstanding of the nature of complaint or was manifestly absurd or unjust;
(3) Where the new facts are adduced in second complaint which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on record in the previous proceedings.
- Gurbachan Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 623
The object of furnishing the accused person with copies of the statements and documents as mentioned above is to put him on notice of what he has to meet at the time of inquiry or trial and to prepare himself for his defense.
- Prabhu Dutt Tiwari v. State of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 609
At the stage of summoning accused on the basis of a private complaint, all that is required is satisfaction by Magistrate, that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused in the light of the records made and the evidence adduced by the accused.
- Willie Slaney v. State of M.P., AIR 1956 SC 116
The object of the charge is to give accused notice of the matter he is charged with. If the necessary information is conveyed to him and no prejudice is caused to him because of the charges, the accused cannot succeed by merely showing that the charges framed were defective.
- Nitya Dharmanand v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy, (2018) 2 SCC 93
At the stage of framing of charge the accused cannot ordinarily invoke Section 91 of the Code. However, the court is not debarred from exercising the power under Section 91 in the interest of justice. The court has to be satisfied that the material available with the investigator, not made part of the charge-sheet has crucial bearing on the issue of framing of charge. Thus, ordinarily the court has to proceed on the basis of the material produced with the charge-sheet for framing of charge but if the court is satisfied that the investigator has with held certain documents important from the point of view of ensuring justice then court is not debarred from summoning the same.
- State v. S. Selvi, (2018) 13 SCC 455.
At the time of framing of charge probative value of material on record has to be gone into which proceeds on presumption. those materials produced by prosecution is true but the court is not expected to go deep into the matter. If two views are equally possible and the judge is satisfied on the basis of evidence produced that there is some suspicion but not grave suspicion then he will be justified in discharging the accused.
- sheodhan Paswan v. State of Bihar,(1987) 1 SCC 288
When an application under Section 321 is made it is not necessary for the court to assess the evidence to discover whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The court has to see whether the application is made in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice and not to thwart or stifle the process of law.
- Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92,
Supreme Court laid down following guidelines with respect to Section 319:
(i) The word ‘evidence’ has to be broadly understood and it must not be restricted to the evidence brought during trial. Materials coming before the court in course of inquiries can be used for corroboration of the evidence recorded in the court after the trial commences for the exercise of Section 319.
(ii) The ‘evidence’ need not be tested by cross-examination. The power can be exercised even on the basis of examination-in-chief.
(iii) The degree of satisfaction required for summoning the person under Section 319 is same as that of framing ofcharge.
(iv) A person not named in FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been charge-sheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319.
- Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. CBI, (2019) 14 SCC 328
The Supreme Court observed that filing of successive applications for recall of a witness under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be encouraged.
- Bhagyan Das v. State of Uttarakhand, (2019) 4 SCC 354
The Supreme Court observed that a court has discretion to reject a plea to compound an offence having social impact, even if the offence is compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Moti Ram v. State of M.P., AIR 1978 SC 1594
Supreme Court held that bail is a process to set a person free who is under arrest or detention by taking security for his appearance. Expression ‘bail’ covers both release on one’s own bond, with or without sureties. The right to be released on bail cannot be nullified indirectly by fixing too high the amount of bond or bail-bond to be furnished by the person seeking release.
- Gurubaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565
Supreme Court laid down following principles in respect of anticipatory bail:
(I)Registration of FIR is not a condition precedent to exercise the power under Section 438;
(II) Interim order can be passed without notice to the Public Prosecutor but before passing the final order notice must be given;
(III) Order under Section 438 would not affect the right of police to conduct investigation,
(IV) Where a case has been made for remand under Section167(2) or reasonable claims to secure incriminating material under section 27 of the Evidence Act, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised;
(VI) Blanket order of anticipatory bail should not be made.
- Raghubir v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481
Supreme Court laid down the following circumstances where the bail can be cancelled:
Tampers with evidence;
Commits same or similar offence;
Absconds or goes beyond the control of sureties;
A Misuses liberty granted to him;
- Naresh Kumar Yadav v. Ravindra Kumar (2008) 1 SCC 632
The applicant must show that he has ‘reason to believe that he may be arrested in a non-bailable offence. Use of the expression ‘reason to believe’ shows that the applicant may be arrested, must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere ‘fear’ is not belief for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of vague apprehension that someone is going to make an accusation against him in pursuance of which he may be arrested.
- Novada Properties Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Anr, Cr. Appeal No. 1481/2019 decided on 24.09.2019
The Supreme Court held that police do not have the power to attach immovable property during investigation under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, police do have authority to freeze moveable properties of the accused. The Supreme Court held that the expression ‘any property’ appearing in Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not include ‘immovable property.
- Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, (1991) CrLJ 3086 (SC)
Judicial officers shall not visit the police station on their own except in connection with their official or judicial duties. In case it is necessary for a judicial officer or a subordinate judicial officer to visit the police station in connection with his official work, he must do so with prior information of his visit to District and Sessions Judge.