Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.84 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 200 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 190 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sukhwasi Son Of Hulasi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 18 September, 2007
10. From the aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this fact is borne out that before lodging the FIR, the competent police officer can make a preliminary enquiry in order to find out as to whether the first information sought to be lodged had any substance or not. If the police officer is competent to make a preliminary enquiry in a given case in order to find out as to whether the first information sought to be lodged had any substance or not, then how the Magistrate can be bound to direct registration of FIR and its investigation on each and every application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. containing allegations of commission of a cognizable offence without applying its mind to find out whether the allegations made on the application have any substance or not. In my considered opinion, the Magistrate is required to apply its mind to find out whether the first information sought to be lodged by the applicant had any substance or not. If the allegations made in the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. prima-facie appear to be without any substance, then in such case the Magistrate can refuse to direct registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police, even if the application contains the allegations of commission of a cognizable offence. In such case, the Magistrate is fully competent to reject the application. Even in the cases, where prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed from the averments made in the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in appropriate case according to facts and nature of the offences alleged to have been committed, the Magistrate can decline to direct investigation and in such cases the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be treated as complaint, as held by the Division Bench in the case of Sukhwasi (supra).
Section 203 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Shiv Pal Tiwari And Ors. (Complaint ... vs The State Of U.P And Anr. on 20 May, 2013
15. Similarly, the Apex Court has again in the Case of Hari Singh Vs. State of U.P reported in 2006 Criminal Law Journal 3283 held that para 4:
Section 3 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Father Thomas vs State Of U.P. & Another on 22 December, 2010
In the case of Father Thomas Vs. State of U.P and Anr. reported in 2011 Crl. Law Journal 2278 though the matter was that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was allowed and when revision came before court for decision, the court was of the view that the accused has no locus standi to challenge an order passed, and an order directing investigation is purely interlocutory in nature in view of statutory bar contain under section 397(2) of the Code.
Rajinder Singh Katoch vs Chandigarh Administration & Ors on 12 October, 2007
In the case of Rajendra Singh Katoch vs. Chandigarh Administration & others reported in 2008 (60) ACC 347, the Apex Court has made the following observation in para 8 of the report at page 348:-