P. Sirajuddin Etc vs State Of Madras Etc on 9 March, 1970
In P.Sirajuddin v. State of Madras reported in (1970) 1 SCC 595, a public servant who occupied the top position in a department was publically charged with acts of dishonesty.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.49 seconds)The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Bhagwant Kishore Joshi on 17 April, 1963
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi reported in AIR 1964 SC 221, a Booking Clerk in Railways was accused of allegedly misappropriating government money and also committing breach of trust during the period between 22.10.1955 and 26.05.1956. The Railway Sectional Officer, Special Police Establishment, Lucknow sent a report to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment stating that he received information through a source that the accused was in the habit of misappropriating government money, giving seven instances of the act of misappropriation committed by him and informing him that if a proper investigation was made many more cases of misappropriation would come to light. As the information was regarding the habit of a Railway servant misappropriating government money and the details of the commission of offences were not fully furnished before registering a case and investigating the same, the Sub-Inspector of Police, as per the direction of the Superintendent of Police, conducted a preliminary enquiry by checking the relevant records pursuant to which he submitted a report whereupon a case was registered. In the said case, it was held that the preliminary enquiry conducted would not amount to investigation and the same would not be the ground on which the conviction of the trial court could be set aside.
G.Arokiya Marie vs The Superintendent Of Police on 1 February, 2008
Of course in Arokiyamarie's case the learned Judge has stated that, if the offences are graver in nature, the court has to act with swiftness by issuing directions to ensure that the evidence of such heinous crimes do not get erased by passage of time.
Aleque Padamsee And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 July, 2007
"However, in the event of the police officer in-charge of the police station refusing to register a case even though the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. reported in 2008(1) MLJ (Crl) 1393 (SC); and in Aleque Padamse v. Union of India reported in 2008(1) MLJ (Crl) 490 (SC), the remedy available to the complainant/informant is to first approach the Superintendent of Police concerned and then, in case of inaction on his part also, to approach the Judicial Magistrate either under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C or under Section 200 Cr.P.C by way of a private complaint.
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
17. The preponderance of the decisions made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard will show that it is desirable to have a preliminary enquiry before registering a formal FIR when public servants are sought to be prosecuted for dishonesty and corruption in discharge of their duties or for having wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income. This will be clear from the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case has held that the registration of the case without conducting a preliminary enquiry was not a ground for quashing the FIR. Only in Rajinder Singh Katoch vs.Chandigarh Administration and Ohters reported in (2007) 10 SCC 69, His Lordship S.B.Sinha, J. has made the following observations.
Rajinder Singh Katoch vs Chandigarh Administration & Ors on 12 October, 2007
The same view was expressed in Rajinder Singh Katoch vs. Chhandigarh Administration and Others reported in (2007) 10 SCC 69.
Lallan Chaudhary & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 12 October, 2006
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:-
Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others on 7 December, 2007
"However, in the event of the police officer in-charge of the police station refusing to register a case even though the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. reported in 2008(1) MLJ (Crl) 1393 (SC); and in Aleque Padamse v. Union of India reported in 2008(1) MLJ (Crl) 490 (SC), the remedy available to the complainant/informant is to first approach the Superintendent of Police concerned and then, in case of inaction on his part also, to approach the Judicial Magistrate either under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C or under Section 200 Cr.P.C by way of a private complaint.
Ramesh Kumari vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) And Ors on 21 February, 2006
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:-
P.A. Thillai Chidambara Nadar vs The Addl. Appellate Asstt. ... on 29 July, 1985
3. It has also been contended on behalf of the police that though the police may have got an obligation to register a case based on a complaint if it discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the person aggrieved by the non-compliance with such obligation cannot approach the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C for a direction to the police to register a case. The said contention was raised relying on the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakirivasu vs. State of U.P. reported in 2008(1) MLJ (Crl) 1393 SC and Alaque Padamsee and others vs. Union of India and others reported in 2008(1) MLJ (Crl) 490 SC. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said cases came to be considered by a learned single judge of this court in G.Arokiya Marie vs. Superintendent of Police, Villupuram reported in 2008(2) MLJ (Crl) 796, another single judge of this court sitting in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in A.Sowfila vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai and 2 others reported in 2008(2) LW (Crl) 843. Yet, since some of the points, which the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases want to bring it to the notice of the court were not put-forth by the petitioners in the earlier cases and not decided therein, the consideration of those aspects has become necessary for the disposal of these petitions. Hence all these petitions are taken up together for disposal by a common order.