I-legal a law shelter "lawforall""

I-legal a law shelter "lawforall"" Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from I-legal a law shelter "lawforall"", Criminal lawyer, Patna.

31/12/2021

गणेश हरैं सब विघ्न आपके.
लक्ष्मी बैठैं दोनों हाथ।
खुशियाँ आपके सदाँ कदम चूमैं. तरक्की हो दिन रात।
कान्हा आपको दें कामयाबी.
राधारानी दें आपको प्यार।
नव वर्ष यह सब दे आपको.
यही दुआ है मेरी आज।
आपको आपके परिवार को नव वर्ष 2022 की हार्दिक शुभकामनायें॥ (सुष्मिता सिंह, अधिवक्ता, पटना उच्च न्यायालय, पटना )

With the new year on the horizon, I wish that you embrace it with an open heart and go forward with faith, hope, and courage..

*Happy New Year 2022*

Sushmita singh [Advocate]
*

01/06/2021

Section 154 And 156 of CrPC

Hon’ble Apex Court, in the matter of “M. Subramaniam & Anr. Vs. S. Janaki & Anr[1], has recently set aside a High Court order which directed the police to register an FIR and file the final report on the basis of the complaint. Hon’ble Supreme Court placed reliance on its previous decision in the matter of Sakiri Vasu v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others[2] (“Case 1”) in which it has dealt with due process in connection with the non-registration of FIR.

Beginning with the essential differences between the sections 154 and 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, this article culminates with the chronology of remedies to be exhausted for registration of FIR through Court.

Section 154: Information in cognizable cases[3]

Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C elucidates that any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by himself or under his direction, and all such information, whether in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person who furnishes it.

Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C explicates that a complaint shall be given in writing or by post to the Superintendent of Police if any person is aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in subsection.

The Superintendent of Police, upon receipt of such complaint if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code.

Section 156 (3). Judicial magistrate’s power to investigate cognizable case[4]

Section 156(3) entails that any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order an investigation by a police officer performing its duties under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C

The above-mentioned sections highlight the chronology/series of remedies available to a person. Firstly, filing a complaint before the police official and secondly, in the event of failure of the registration of the complaint by the official, one shall approach the SSP/SP for the said purpose. However, if the complaint is not registered even after that, then the next remedy is to seek help from the Judicial Magistrate.

Hon’ble Apex Court citing various judgments has clarified the right approach for registration of FIR.

Court’s Observation

Hon’ble Apex court has observed that if any application under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and an appropriate investigation to be taken place, in the event where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was done. Under the same provision, the Magistrate may monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.

Supporting Case Laws

In Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan Hon’ble, Apex Court observed: (SCC p. 631, para 11)[5] that a Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, may order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. If he does so, he should not consider the complainant’s oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein.
This Court had taken the same view in Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi (JT vide para 17).[6]
The honb’le Court clarified that even if an FIR has been registered and the police have made the investigation, or is making the investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not satisfactory, such a person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper investigation and may take other appropriate actions.

Thus, in cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its job or is not satisfied with the investigation of the case, he can direct the police to supervise the investigation and monitor it.

In State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha (SCC : AIR para 19)[7], Hon’ble Court held that a Magistrate can order an investigation to resume even after the police have submitted the final report.
Thus, Section 156(3) Cr.P.C although briefly worded, is very extensive and includes all such incidental powers as are necessary to ensure a proper investigation.

In Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others,[8] it was observed that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy available to the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
High Court’s Power – (Why not move the High Court by filing a writ petition or Under Section 482 Cr.P.C)

Hon’ble Apex Court relying on its judgment passed in Case 1 observed that- we have found in this country that the High Courts are flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.

The High Court should not encourage this practice and should generally refuse to intervene in such matters and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36, his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person’s FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, a proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

It is true that alternative remedies are not the absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally settled that the High Court should not intervene if there is an alternative remedy.

Conclusion

Thus, it can be safely concluded that in order to keep the wheels of our criminal justice system moving, filing of “FIR” is most essential. The same should be done chronologically. Firstly, the complainant must try to get the FIR filed under Section 154 C.r.P.C. If the police refuse to register FIR U/S 154 then the complainant must move under Section 154(3) by filing a written complaint. In case of non-registration of FIR, as per previous provisions then the complainant can move under Sec 156(3) and can approach Magistrate.

It is well-settled law that 156(3) is a resort for registration of FIR in the event the police do not entertain one’s complaint. Directly approaching High Court for registration of the FIR either by filing a writ petition/application under Article 226 of Constitution Of India or section 482 of CrPC would cause dismissal of the petition out rightly. Therefore, the crux of the matter is to exhaust the remedies chronologically, categorically and cautiously in light of the aforementioned legal scheme of provisions

https://hindi.livelaw.in/2018/03/27/4648.html?/cccvvrrfwfewfc
10/09/2020

https://hindi.livelaw.in/2018/03/27/4648.html?/cccvvrrfwfewfc

जब दो वयस्क अपनी इच्छा से शादी करते हैं तो वे अपना रास्ता चुनते हैं; वे अपने रिश्ते को समाहित करते हैं; उन्हें लगता ह....

https://bit.ly/3gsNkNl
27/08/2020

https://bit.ly/3gsNkNl

यदि पति ने दो शादी की है तो पति की संपत्ति पर सिर्फ और सिर्फ पहली पत्नी का अधिकार है. यह फैसला मंगलवार को बॉम्बे हाईक....

23/08/2020

(a) Whether this Court has power to transfer investigation (not case or appeal) under Section 406 of the CrPC?
Under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Supreme Court has the power to transfer cases and appeals either from one High Court to another, or from one subordinate court to another.

After considering a few judgments on the issue, the Court held,

"Having considered the contour of the power under section 406 CrPC, it must be concluded that only cases and appeals (not investigation) can be transferred."

(b) Whether the proceeding under Section 174 CrPC conducted by the Mumbai Police to inquire into the unnatural death, can be termed as an investigation?
A proceeding under Section 174 CrPC is limited to finding out the cause of death in case of an unnatural death, and is different from a regular investigation into an FIR carried out under Section 157.

Noting that the Mumbai Police has neither lodged an FIR in the case, nor considered the matter under Section 175 (2) CrPC, suspecting commission of a cognizable offence, the Court held,

"In the present case, the Mumbai Police has attempted to stretch the purview of Section 174 without drawing up any FIR and therefore, as it appears, no investigation pursuant to commission of a cognizable offence is being carried out by the Mumbai police…Therefore, it is pre-emptive and premature to hold that a parallel investigation is being carried out by the Mumbai Police."

The Court then made an observation that in the event two courts in different jurisdictions take cognizance of the same offence, the issue can be resolved by application of Section 186 CrPC. According to this provision, the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced shall decide where the inquiry shall take place.

(c) Whether it was within the jurisdiction of the Patna Police to register the FIR and commence investigation of the alleged incidents which took place in Mumbai? As a corollary, what is the status of the investigation by the CBI on the consent given by the Bihar government?
Adverting to several precedents, the Court reiterated that registration of an FIR is mandatory when information on a cognizable offence is received by the police. A police officer cannot refrain from investigating a case on grounds of territorial jurisdiction. Such issue of jurisdiction can be decided after conclusion of the investigation, the Court noted.

Further, the allegation of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of money made by Rajput's father against Chakraborty would be eventually accounted for in Patna, where the former resides. Thus, the Court held,

"...it must be held that the Patna police committed no illegality in registering the Complaint. At the stage of investigation, they were not required to transfer the FIR to Mumbai police. For the same reason, the Bihar government was competent to give consent for entrustment of investigation to the CBI and as such the ongoing investigation by the CBI is held to be lawful."

(d) What is the scope of the power of a single judge exercising jurisdiction under section 406 of the CrPC and whether this Court can issue direction for doing complete justice, in exercise of plenary power?
It was stated that while the CBI cannot conduct any investigation without the consent of a state as mandated under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, the Court is not fettered by such statutory requirement.

Justifying its need to "do complete justice" in the case, the Court said,

"As the CBI has already registered a case and commenced investigation at the instance of the Bihar government, uncertainty and confusion must be avoided in the event of Mumbai Police also deciding to simultaneously investigate the cognizable offence, based on their finding in the inquiry proceeding. Therefore, it would be appropriate to decide at this stage itself as to who should conduct the investigation on all the attending circumstances relating to the death of the actor Sushant Singh Rajput. This issue becomes relevant only if another FIR is registered on the same issue, at Mumbai. A decision by this Court on the point would confer legitimacy to the investigation."

An Accused Cannot Be Arrested In Any Case Till A Request For Extradition Is Merited: Delhi HC [Read Order]
20/08/2020

An Accused Cannot Be Arrested In Any Case Till A Request For Extradition Is Merited: Delhi HC [Read Order]

The Hon'ble Delhi High Court on Tuesday observed that an accused cannot be arrested in any case till a request for extradition is merited. This observation was made by the High Court while...

Address

Patna
800001

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when I-legal a law shelter "lawforall"" posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Share