Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 155 crpc in Adesh Kumar Gupta vs Cbi on 2 September, 2015Matching Fragments
15. In Kathiravan vs Commissioner of Police reported as (2011) 1 CTC 395 it was observed:-
"26. The offences listed in Arokiya Marie's case as heinous crimes regarding which a direction can be issued under Section 482 Cr.P.C to register a case in order to ensure that the evidence of such crime do not get erased by passage of time can be supplemented by other offences of grave nature and the offences exclusively triable by the court of sessions. In such cases also the High Court under Section 482Cr.P.C shall exercise its discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C to issue a direction for registration of a case. In other cases, the High Court shall not issue a positive direction to register cases. The same does not mean that the police can simply keep quiet. Even in cases wherein the complaint discloses the commission of non-cognizable offences alone, the police officer who is receiving the complaint cannot simply keep such a complaint without following the procedure prescribed under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. Section 155 Cr.P.C reads as follows:
(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.
27. As per Sub-section (2) of Section 155, no police officer can investigate a non-cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. But taking umbrage under the said clause, the police officer cannot be allowed to remain inactive without following the procedure prescribed in Section 155 Cr.P.C. Sub- clause (1) of Section 155 Cr.P.C enjoins a duty on the police officer in-charge of a police station who receives information regarding commission of a non- cognizable, within the limits of such station to enter such information in a book kept for that purpose and refer the informant to the Magistrate. The section mandates the police officer in charge of the police station to refer the informant and not the information alone to the Magistrate concerned. Experience has shown that in all cases wherein the police are of the view that the offences made out are non-cognizable, they think that they need not register a case and need not refer the informant to the Magistrate concerned. It is to be noted that Section 155 Cr.P.C does not prohibit registration of a case if the averment discloses the commission of a non-cognizable offence alone. What is prohibited is to investigate the same without obtaining the order of the Magistrate. By the omission on the part of the police to refer the informant to the Magistrate concerned if such police officer is of the view that the complaint discloses only a non-cognizable offence, the procedure prescribed in Sub-section (1) of Section155 is being made a dead letter in practice. The said practice, according to the considered view of this Court, will amount to miscarriage of justice, which has got to be remedied by issuing suitable directions in this regard to the police officer concerned in exercise of this Court's inherent power under Section 482Cr.P.C.
17. Further, under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C., it is always open to the Magistrate either to grant permission or refuse to grant permission. When such a discretion is vested in the Magistrate, it is desirable that the Magistrate shall give reasons while empowering the police officer to investigate into a non-cognizable offence, so that the aggrieved person will be in a position to know the reason for acceptance or rejection of his application, otherwise there is every possibility of misuse of Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. In case such a power is given to a police officer, he may misuse his official position and harass the accused person (Sajjal Aggarwal Vs State of Andhra Pradesh). In Tilaknagar Industries Ltd., and Others Vs State of A.P., and another, AIR 2012 SC 521, State of Haryana and Others Vs Bhajan Lal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604 the Apex Court held that the statutory safeguard given under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C., of the Code must be strictly followed, since they are conceived in public interest and as a guarantee against frivolous and vexacious investigation.
18. A Full bench of Allahabad High Court in Shyam Lal Sharma Vs King Emperor, AIR (36) 1949 Allahabad 483 (FB) held as under :
"Section 155 Cr.P.C., occurs in Chapter XIV of the Code, which deals with investigation of the offence. It makes a marked distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offences. It authorizes police officer incharge of a police station to investigate the cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate, but forbids the police officer from investigating a non-cognizable case unless, ordered by a Magistrate to do so. Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C., shall deal with this matter and reads thus"