Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 545 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Devarapalll Lakshminarayana Reddy & ... vs V.Narayana Reddy & Ors on 4 May, 1976

Muhammed V.A vs State Of Kerala on 12 December, 2018

The question that was considered was whether prior sanction for prosecution against a public servant is required before setting in motion even the investigative process u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. After considering the various judgments including R.R.Chari (supra), Gopal Das Sindhi (supra), Jamuna Singh (supra) Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. Sate of West Bengal [(1973) 3 SCC 753], Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy (supra) and also Anil Kumar (supra), directed the matter to be placed before a larger Bench and it was held at paragraphs 33 to 36 as under:-
Kerala High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Alok Joshi vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 20 December, 2019

26. Section 2(h) is not noticed by the aforesaid judgment at all, resulting in the erroneous finding in law that the power under Section 156(3) can only be exercised at the pre- cognizance stage. The "investigation" spoken of in Section 156(3) would embrace the entire process, which begins with the collection of evidence and continues until charges are framed by the Court, at which stage the trial can be said to have begun. For these reasons, the statement of the 18 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 19-01-2020 18:35:21 ::: ( 19 ) CRM-M-40231-2017(O&M) law contained in paragraph 17 in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy (supra) cannot be relied upon.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - G S Gill - Full Document

Jagannath Verma And Ors. vs The State Of U.P And Anr. on 23 September, 2014

To expect a complainant who suffers from grave social disabilities occasioned by the widespread societal discrimination on grounds of gender and caste, which prevail in our society more than six decades after independence, to effectively prosecute a complaint before the magistrate under Chapter XV of the Code, would be to shut our eyes to social reality. The well settled distinction between a police investigation falling within the ambit and purview of Chapter XII and an enquiry or investigation ordered by the magistrate under Section 202 have already been noticed earlier following the decision of the Supreme Court in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy (supra). The power of the magistrate under Section 202 to postpone the issuance of process and to direct an investigation to be made by a police officer for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding, is distinct from an order under Section 156 (3). This distinction is part of the well settled principle of our law. Hence, in our view, where an order is passed by the magistrate declining to order an investigation under Section 156 (3), such an order affects the valuable rights of the complainant and is a matter of moment. Access to the remedy of a revision under Section 397 (1) is not barred since such an order is not an interlocutory order under sub-section (2). Nor can access to the statutory remedy of a revision under Section 397 (1) be defeated on the ground that the complainant may avail of the procedure prescribed in Chapter XV of the Code.
Allahabad High Court Cites 92 - Cited by 51 - D K Arora - Full Document

Chandra Mohan Shukla vs State Of Assam And Anr. on 17 July, 2007

Clarified the Supreme Court, in Devarapalli Lakshminaryana Reddy (supra), the position of law, in this regard, as follows ...If on a reading of the complaint he finds that the allegation therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the magistrate from being wasted in inquiring into a matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence, himself.
Gauhati High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - I Ansari - Full Document

Ajai Malviya vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 6 July, 2000

Investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code albeit "embraces the entire continuous process which begins with the collection of evidence under Section 156 and ends with a report or charge sheet under Section 173" Devarapath Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy AIR 1976 SC 1672 but the discretion vested in the Magistrate to either take cognizance under Section 190 and follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code or direct police investigation under Section 156(3) and on receipt of the report proceed according to law, is a judicial discretion.
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

Balwant Singh @ Bant Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 16 March, 2023

47. Referring to its earlier decisions in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and Others v. V. Narayana Reddy and Others, (1976) 3 SCC 252 and Tula Ram and Others v. Kishore Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 459, the Supreme Court in Srinivas Gundluri and Others v. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation and Page 16 of 21 16 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 08-06-2023 00:15:10 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050790 Others, (2010) 8 SCC 206 has held that when a Magistrate orders investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code without examining the merits of the claim, the Magistrate does not bring into motion the machinery of Chapter XV of the Code, therefore, the Magistrate has not taken cognizance of the matter, and, as such, when such direction for investigation is made, the Magistrate does not commit any illegality. Even after receipt of such report, the Magistrate under Section 190 of the Code may or may not take cognizance of the offence. Thus, at the stage of directing investigation the Magistrate having not applied its mind as it has not taken cognizance of the matter, there is no order of the Magistrate which can be revised under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code. What is revisable under Section 397 of the Code is the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court against whose order the revision application has been preferred. When there is no finding, sentence or order against the accused, the same is not revisable under Section 397 of the Code.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Date Of Decision: 18.09.2024 vs Daljeet Singh & Others on 18 September, 2024

21. Dealing with the nature of power exercised by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, a three-Judge Bench in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy [(1976) 3 SCC 252 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 380] , had to express thus : (SCC p. 258, para 17) "17. ... It may be noted further that an order made under sub-section (3) of Section 156, is in the nature of a peremptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise their plenary powers of investigation under Section 156(1). Such an investigation embraces the entire continuous process which begins with the collection of evidence under Section 156 and ends with a report or charge-sheet under Section 173."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next