Rajendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 11 March, 2025
Of course, this larger proposition of law laid down in Ram Lal Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] is not necessary to be relied on by us in the present case.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 497 (2.24 seconds)Sri Basavaraj Shivappa Muttagi vs State Of Karnataka on 16 October, 2021
In Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979)
2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479 : AIR 1979 SC 1791] it
was observed by this Court that further investigation is
not altogether ruled out merely because cognisance has
been taken by the court. When defective investigation
comes to light during course of trial, it may be cured by
further investigation, if circumstances so permitted. It
would ordinarily be desirable and all the more so in this
case, that the police should inform the court and seek
formal permission to make further investigation when
236
fresh facts come to light instead of being silent over the
matter keeping in view only the need for an early trial
since an effective trial for real or actual offences found
during course of proper investigation is as much
relevant, desirable and necessary as an expeditious
disposal of the matter by the courts. In view of the
aforesaid position in law, if there is necessity for further
investigation, the same can certainly be done as
prescribed by law. The mere fact that there may be
further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in
the way of further investigation if that would help the
court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial
as well as effective justice. We make it clear that we
have not expressed any final opinion on the merits of
the case.
Sri Rana Sinha @ Sujit Sinha vs The State Of Tripura & Ors on 28 April, 2011
250. The mere fact, therefore, that there may be further delay in
concluding the trial, should not stand on the way of „further investigation‟
if „further investigation‟ would help the Court in arriving at the truth and in
doing substantial and effective justice. The relevant observations, made,
in this regard, in Omprakash Narang (supra), read:
J. Jayalalitha vs State Represented By Superintendent Of ... on 10 January, 2002
In the interest of independence of the magistracy and the judiciary, in the interest of purity of the administration of criminal justice and in the interest of the comity of various agencies and institutions entrusted with different stages of such administration, in deference to the observations of the Apex Court made in RAM LAL NARANG Vs. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) reported in 1979 SCC (Cri) 479, and the ratio laid down in J.ALEXANDER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 1996 Crl.L.J. 592 and ARJUNA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA reported in 1989 Crl.L.J. 449, whatever the decision, the Designated Court is to take, the same shall be in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure and in consequence of the above direction.
J.Jayalalithaa vs State Represented By on 10 January, 2002
In the interest of independence of the magistracy and the judiciary, in
the interest of purity of the administration of criminal justice and in the
interest of the comity of various agencies and institutions entrusted with
different stages of such administration, in deference to the observations of
the Apex Court made in RAM LAL NARANG Vs. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)
reported in 1979 SCC (Cri) 479, and the ratio laid down in J.ALEXANDER Vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 1996 Crl.L.J. 592 and ARJUNA KUMAR Vs. STATE
OF ORISSA reported in 1 989 Crl.L.J. 449, whatever the decision, the
Designated Court is to take, the same shall be in accordance with the Code of
Criminal Procedure and in consequence of the above direction.
Jakir Hussain Kosangi And Others vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By ... on 4 July, 2017
In Narang case it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to
conduct further investigation with the permission of the court. However, the
sweeping power of investigation with the permission of the court. However,
the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen
each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same
incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon
filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under
Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections
154 and 156 Cr.P.C., nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of
investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation
based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in
connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have
been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of
which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final
report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a
fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution.
Anil Singh @ Anil Kumar Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar, Through The Chief ... on 31 August, 2018
20. It is worth noting that the Court also dealt with the
view expressed in Ram Lal Narang8 and stated thus: (Upkar
Singh case9, SCC p. 299, para 22)
"22. A perusal of the judgment of this Court
in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.)8 also shows that
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1226 of 2018 dt.31-08-2018 31
even in cases where a prior complaint is already
registered, a counter-complaint is permissible but it goes
further and holds that even in cases where a first
complaint is registered and investigation initiated, it is
possible to file a further complaint by the same
complainant based on the material gathered during the
course of investigation. Of course, this larger proposition
of law laid down in Ram Lal Narang case8 is not necessary
to be relied on by us in the present case.
Cbi Acb vs Mahesh J Biliye on 26 October, 2024
52.Ram Lal Narang [Ram Lal
Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.),
(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC
(Cri) 479] was cited to be an au-
State Through Central Bureau Of ... vs Hemendhra Reddy Etc. Etc. on 28 April, 2023
In Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration) reported in (1979)
2 SCC 322, this Court held thus:
Vikas Gupta vs State Of Punjab on 10 January, 2002
"Power of the police to conduct further investigation, after laying final report, is recognised under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even after the Court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of the police report first submitted, it is open to the police to conduct further investigation. This has been so stated by this Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 SC 1791. The only rider provided by the aforesaid decision is that it would be desirable that the police should inform the Court and seek formal permission to make further investigation.