Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)
Nikunj Sharma vs State Of J&K And Another on 2 March, 2023 cites

H. N. Rishbud And Inder Singh vs The State Of Delhi(And Connected ... on 14 December, 1954

18) At first blush, the contention raised by Mr. Aseem Sawhney appears to be attractive but when the same is deeply analyzed in the light of legal position on the subject, the same appears to be without any merit because the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in N. H. Rishbud's case, on which heavy reliance has been placed by the learned counsel Mr. Sawhney, cannot be made applicable to the instant case for the reason that investigation of the impugned FIR is still at its inception.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 716 - B Jagannadhadas - Full Document

T.T. Haneefa vs State Of Kerala on 21 April, 2004

24) In the instant case, the basic FIR has been registered in respect of non- cognizable offences and as per the Investigation Agency, now cognizable offence under Section 498-A Cr.P.C. has also been found established against the petitioner. Such a situation is not contemplated by law. The basic foundation of the investigation which is registration of impugned FIR, is itself without sanction of law. Therefore, any investigation undertaken on its strength is bound to crumble. The same cannot be legalized once its very 12 CRMC No. 181/2018 basis is illegal. I am supported in my aforesaid view with the judgment of High Court of Kerala in Haneefa vs. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker)
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Keshav Lal Thakur vs State Of Bihar on 11 October, 1996

In the said case, Kerala High Court while relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Keshav Lal Thakur vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 11 SCC 557 held that when only non-cognizable offences are alleged initially, investigation cannot be commenced without orders from the Magistrate. It has been further held that incorporation of a cognizable offence at the time of filing a final report cannot be utilized as a method or as a device to circumvent the mandate of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. by the officer incharge of the police station or any investigating officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 81 - Full Document

State Of J&K vs Mohd. Saleem And Others on 16 August, 2022

23) It is a settled law that if during the investigation of the cognizable offence, certain non-cognizable offences are also made out, the Investigating Agency is not required to seek permission of the Magistrate for undertaking investigation in respect of those offences. In fact, in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 there is specific provision in the shape of Section 155(4) CrPC, which provides that where a case relates to two or more offences of which, at least one is cognizable, the case should be deemed a cognizable case notwithstanding that other offences are non-cognizable. Even in the context of Jammu and Kashmir Cr. P.C. where there is no akin to Section 155(4) of Central Cr.P.C. the Supreme Court in the case of State of J&K vs. Dr. Saleem ur Rehman, 2021 SCC Online SC 1014, has made it clear that while investigating cognizable offences, the investigating agency is well within its jurisdiction to investigate the offences of non-cognizable nature together with the cognizable offences.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - R Oswal - Full Document
1