Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 701 (1.95 seconds)
Documents citing Abhinandan Jha & Ors vs Dinesh Mishra(With Connected Appeal) on 17 April, 1967

Arshad And Ors. vs State Of Up And Anr. on 26 March, 2008

In Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra (supra) the question arose whether a Magistrate to whom a report under Section 173(2) had been submitted to the effect that no case had been made out against the accused, could direct the police to file a charge-sheet, on his disagreeing with the report submitted by the Police. This Court held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct the police to submit a charge-sheet but it was open to the Magistrate to agree or disagree with the police report. If he agreed with the report that there was no case made out for issuing process to the accused, he might accept the report and close the proceedings. If he came to the conclusion that further investigation was necessary he might make an order to that effect under Section 156(3) and if ultimately the Magistrate was of the opinion that the facts set out in the police report constituted an offence he could take cognizance of the offence, notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police expressed in the report. While expressing the opinion that the Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police, the Court observed that the Magistrate could take cognizance under Section '190(1)(c)'.
Allahabad High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - A Saran - Full Document

Dev Dutt Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 October, 2020

This order of Special Judge was assailed before the High Court and the High court allowed the petition by quashing the order of Special Judge Katni by relying upon decisions in Abhinandan Jha & others Vs. Dinesh Mishra (AIR 1968 SC 117) & Mansukh Lal Vs. State of Gujrat (AIR 1997 SC 3400) and thus holding that the trial court cannot impinge upon jurisdiction of police by directing them to change their opinion when closure report is submitted u/Sec. 169 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved, the complainant preferred appeal before the Apex court where the question which arose for consideration was whether the High Court in the given facts & circumstances was justified in treating the operative portion of the order of Special Judge Katni as a direction for obtaining sanction for prosecution qua accused therein for whom closure report 20 was filed. The Apex court after discussing the fundamental and conceptual difference between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi held that the direction in regard to obtaining sanction for prosecution from appointing authority by the Special Judge Katni was a mere observation or remark, which could not form part of the finding on merits in regard to cognizance. Thus, the Apex court in the case of Arun Kumar Aggarwal (s) upturned the order of the High Court and upheld the order of learned Special Judge, Katni.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 27 - S Nagu - Full Document

V.V. Shree Khande And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 March, 2019

"(12) The learned Magistrate on receiving final report submitted in the case issued notice to the opposite party No.4, the complainant of the case in view of decision of the Apex Court in Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra 1967 (4) ACC 306 SC, through no such specific provision is contained in the Cr.P.C. The question as to what is the position when the Magistrate is dealing with the report submitted by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been answered by the Apex Court in the case of Abhinandan Jha v. Disnesh Mishra (supra) and it was held that the Magistrate on receiving of such report may accept the final report and close the proceedings. But there may be instances when the Magistrate may take a view on consideration of the final report; that the opinion formed by the police is not based on full and complete investigation in which case, the Magistrate will have ample jurisdiction to give directions to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. i.e. if the Magistrate feels after considering the final report that the investigation is unsatisfactory or incomplete or that there is scope for further investigation, it will be open to the Magistrate to decline to accept the final report and direct police to make further investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The police after such further investigation may submit a charge-sheet or against submit a final report, depending upon the further investigation made by them. If ultimately, the Magistrate forms opinion that the facts set out in the final report constitute an offence, under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police expressed in the final report. It was further held in the said case that it is open to the Magistrate to treat the respective protest petitions as complaint and take further proceedings according to law."
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - S K Gupta - Full Document

Naresh Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 24 October, 2013

In the case of Abninandan Jha and others v. Dinesh Misra (supra) the question arose whether a Magistrate to whom a report under Section 173 (2) had been submitted to the effect that no case had been made out against the accused, could direct the police to file a charge-sheet, on his disagreeing with the report submitted by the Police. This Court held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct the police to submit a charge-sheet but it was open to the Magistrate to agree or disagree with the police report. If he agreed with the report that there was no case made out for issuing process to the accused, he might accept the report and close the proceedings. If he came to the conclusion that further investigation was necessary he might make an order to that effect under Section 156 (3) and if ultimately the Magistrate was of the opinion that the facts set out in the police report constituted an offence he could take cognizance of the offence, notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police expressed in the report.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dilip Kumar Roy vs The State And Anr. on 5 July, 1994

In Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra (supra) the question arose whether a Magistrate to whom a report Under section 173(2) had been submitted to the effect that no case had been made out against the accused, could direct the police to file a charge-sheet, on his disagreeing with the report submitted by the police. This court held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct the police to submit a charge-sheet but it was open to the Magistrate to agree or disagree with the police report. If he agreed with the police report that there was no case made out for issuing process to the accused, he might accept the report and close the proceedings. If he came to the conclusion that further investigation was necessary he might make an order to that effect Under section 156(3) and if ultimately the Magistrate was of the opinion that the facts set out in the police report constituted an offence he could take cognizance of the offence, notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police expressed in the report.
Calcutta High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.Periyasamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 18 April, 2012

In R.N.Chatterji V. Havildar Kuer Sing, A.N.Ray, J, as he then was, followed the decision in Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra (supra) and held that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code do not empower the Magistrate to direct the police officer to submit a charge-sheet but if he is of the opinion that the report submitted by the police requires further investigation, the Magistrate may order investigation, under Section 163 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was held that directing further enquiry is entirely different from asking police to submit a charge-sheet. The only cource open for the Magistrate if he is not satisfied with the police report under Section 169 is to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Madras High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - C S Karnan - Full Document

K. Shankaraiah, S.I. Of Police vs State Of A.P. on 22 November, 1982

In Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra 1968 Cri LJ 97 (SC) (supra) the question arose whether a Magistrate to whom a report under Section 173(1) had been submitted to the effect that no case had been made out against the accused, could direct the police to file a charge-sheet on his disagreeing with the report submitted by the police. This court held, that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct the police to submit a charge-sheet. It was open to the Magistrate to agree or disagree with the police report. If he agreed with the report that there was no case made out for issuing process to the accused, he might accept the report and close the proceedings. If he came to the conclusion that further investigation was necessary he might make an order to that effect under Section 156 (3). If ultimately the Magistrate was of the opinion that the facts set out in the police report constituted an offence he could take cognizance of the offence, notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police expressed in the report. While-expressing the opinion that the Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police, the court observed that the Magistrate could take cognizance under Section 190(1)(c). We do not have any doubt that the reference to Section 190(1)(c) was a mistake for Section 190(1)(b). That appears to be obvious to us. But Shri Kapil Sibel urged that the reference was indeed to Section 190(1)(c) since at that time Section 190(1)(c) included the words 'or suspicion' and the court had apparently taken the view that the Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence not under Section 190(1)(b) as i on a police report but under Section 190(1)(c) as, if 'on suspicion'. We do not agree with this submission. Section 190(1)(c) was never intended to apply t6 cases where there was a police report under Section 173(1). We find it impossible to say that a Mages trate who takes cognizance of an offence on the baste of the facts disclosed in a police report must be said to have taken cognizance of the offence on suspicion and not upon a police report, merely because the Magistrate and the Police arrived at different conclusions from the facts. The Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the police even as he is not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the complainant, in a complaint.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sharavan Baburao Dinkar And Etc. vs N.B. Hirve, Additional Inspector Of ... on 25 September, 1996

"16. The position is, therefore, now well settled that upon receipt of a police report under Section 173(2) a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused. The Magistrate can take into account the statements of the witnesses examined by the police during the investigation and take cognizance of the offence complained of and order the issue of process to the accused. Section 190(1)(b) does not lay down that a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only if the investigating officer gives an opinion that the investigation has made out a case against the accused. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the cases, if he thinks fit, in exercise of his powers under Section 190(1)(b) and direct the issue of process to the accused. The Magistrate is not bound in such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in Sections 200 and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance of a case under Section 190(1)(a) though it is open to him to act under Section 200 or Section 202 also ............."
Bombay High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

Shiv Prakash Pathak And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 September, 2024

In the case of Abninandan Jha and others v. Dinesh Misra (supra) the question arose whether a Magistrate to whom a report under Section 173 (2) had been submitted to the effect that no case had been made out against the accused, could direct the police to file a charge-sheet, on his disagreeing with the report submitted by the Police. This Court held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct the police to submit a charge-sheet but it was open to the Magistrate to agree or disagree with the police report. If he agreed with the report that there was no case made out for issuing process to the accused, he might accept the report and close the proceedings. If he came to the conclusion that further investigation was necessary he might make an order to that effect under Section 156 (3) and if ultimately the Magistrate was of the opinion that the facts set out in the police report constituted an offence he could take cognizance of the offence, notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police expressed in the report.
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - R B Singh - Full Document

Mahendra Pal Sharma And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 25 September, 2002

12. The learned Magistrate on receiving final report submitted in the case issued notice to the opposite party No. 4, the complainant of the case in view of decision of the Apex Court in Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117 though no such specific provision is contained in the Cr. P. C. The question as to what is the position when the Magistrate is dealing with the report submitted by the police under Section 173, Cr. P. G. has been answered by the Apex Court in the case of Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra (supra) and it was held that the Magistrate on receiving of such report may accept the final report and close the proceeding. But there may be instances when the Magistrate may take a view on consideration of the final report; that the opinion formed by the police is not based on full and complete investigation in which case, the Magistrate will have ample jurisdiction to give directions to the police under Section 156(3), Cr. P. C. i.e. if the Magistrate feels after considering the final report that the investigation is unsatisfactory or incomplete or that there is scope for further investigation, it will be open to the Magistrate to decline to accept the final report and direct police to make further investigation under Section 156(3), Cr. P. C. The police after such further investigation may submit a charge sheet or again submit a final report, depending upon the further investigation made by them. If ultimately, the Magistrate forms opinion that the facts set out in the final report constitute an offence he can take cognizance of the offence, under Section 190(1), Cr. P. C., notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police expressed in the final report. It was further held in the said case that it is open to the Magistrate to treat the respective protest petitions as complaint and take further proceedings according to law.
Allahabad High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 6 - U S Tripathi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next