Kanubhai Shamajibhai Dayani And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat And 4 Ors. on 25 July, 2007
The view expressed in Ramesh Kumari's case (supra) was re-iterated in Lallan Chaudhary and Ors. v. State of Bihar AIR 2006 SC 3376.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 399 (2.47 seconds)Documents citing
Lallan Chaudhary & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 12 October, 2006
Satya Muni Verma vs . State & Ors. on 28 January, 2014
c). Lallan Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors 2006(3)
JCC 1731 wherein it was observed that :
"Whether police is bound to register the caseYesSec.154 Cr.
P.C. casts duty upon police officer to register the case as
disclosed in the complaintThen proceed with investigation in
terms of Sec.156,157 Cr.P.C. No option except to register the
5
caseReliability, genuineness and credibility of informationnot
conditions precedent".
Kanika Chauhan vs The State Of Nct Of Elhi And Ors on 23 January, 2025
NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ
BUDHIRAJ 15:18:38
Date: 2025.01.23
+0530
Page No. 4 of 15
Because Ld. ACMM has ignored authorities in case-Lalita
Kumari Vs. State of UP, Lallan Chauhdary vs State of Bihar, Ramesh
Kumari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi).
Yogesh Gupta vs The Secretary (Home) Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 25 February, 2009
The
view expressed in Ramesh Kumari's case (supra) was re-
iterated in Lallan Chaudhary and Ors. v. State of Bihar.
Shayamsunder R. Agarwal vs State Of Maharashtra, The ... on 9 March, 2007
In Lallan Chaudhary and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. 2006 SAR (Criminal) 934, the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, before whom the complaint was lodged had endorsed the complaint to the SHO, Police Station, Ghorasahan, to register FIR and to investigate. The SHO however registered the case under Sections 452, 380, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the accused. Ultimately, the chargesheet was submitted by the police only under Sections 452, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. No case was registered against the accused for offences disclosed in the complaint under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448 and 395 of the IPC and no investigation was carried out by the police in respect of the said sections. The Supreme Court observed that the police had committed grave miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court observed that Section 154 of the Code casts a statutory duty upon police officer to register the case as disclosed in the Complaint and then to proceed with the investigation. The Supreme Court further observed that mandate of Section 154 is manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station, such police officer has no option except to register the case on the basis of such information. After referring to Ramesh Kumari'scase (supra), the Supreme Court observed that mandate of Section 154 of the Code is that at the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence, the police officer concerned cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not relevant or credible. The Supreme Court clarified that reliability, genuineness and credibility of information are not condition precedent for registering a case under Section 154 of the Code. The Supreme Court held that the SHO was statutorily obliged to register the case on the basis of the offence disclosed in the complaint and proceed with investigation in terms of procedure contained under Sections 156 and 157 of the Code. The Supreme Court was of the view that the High Court had correctly corrected the error.
Selvamani vs State Rep By on 5 October, 2009
If we consider the said observation in juxtaposition to the observations made in Ramesh Kumari vs. State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) and Lallan Chaudhary & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. it will make it clear that the subsequent bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that only in exceptional cases such preliminary enquiry should be made before registering a case. Such exceptional cases can be enumerated thus:-
John C.V @ John Peruvanthanam vs State Of Kerala on 1 January, 2008
The view expressed in Ramesh
W.P. (C) No. 29637 of 2007
24
Kumari's case (supra) was reiterated in
Lallan Chaudhary and Others v. State of
Bihar (AIR 2006 SC 3376).
Kathiravan vs State Rep By on 5 October, 2009
If we consider the said observation in juxtaposition to the observations made in Ramesh Kumari vs. State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) and Lallan Chaudhary & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. it will make it clear that the subsequent bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that only in exceptional cases such preliminary enquiry should be made before registering a case. Such exceptional cases can be enumerated thus:-
Satya Muni Verma vs . State & Ors. on 28 January, 2014
c). Lallan Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors 2006(3)
JCC 1731 wherein it was observed that :
"Whether police is bound to register the caseYesSec.154 Cr.
P.C. casts duty upon police officer to register the case as
disclosed in the complaintThen proceed with investigation in
terms of Sec.156,157 Cr.P.C. No option except to register the
5
caseReliability, genuineness and credibility of informationnot
conditions precedent".
Sachin Mehta vs The State on 14 October, 2009
In Lallan Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State
of Bihar and Anr. - 2006 (3) JCC 1731 (SC), as well the fact
situation and the issues raised were different from the instant case,
therefore, the same is of no assistance to the revisionist. In Smt.
Masuman, etc. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. - 2001 (1) CRJ 129 (All),
although the court referred to the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad
High Court but it did not discuss the law laid therein, which it is bound
to follow as per the mandate of Art. 141 of the Constitution of India,
thus, the same is of no assistance to the revisionist.