Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.26 seconds)

Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others on 7 December, 2007

In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure proper investigation into the alleged offence under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he deems it necessary, he can also recommend to the SSP/SP concerned a change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done. The Magistrate can also monitor the investigation, though he cannot himself investigate (as investigation is the job of the police). Parties may produce any material they wish before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order of the High Court."
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 8229 - M Katju - Full Document

State Of Bihar And Anr vs J.A.C. Saldanha And Ors on 13 November, 1979

16. The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 156(3) is an independent power and does not affect the power of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after submission of his report vide Section 173(8). Hence the Magistrate can order reopening of the investigation even after the police submits the final report, vide State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha (SCC : AIR para 19).
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 1183 - D A Desai - Full Document

Emperor vs Khwaja Nazir Ahmed on 17 October, 1944

"There is a clear cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department, the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The executive, which is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over law and order situation is obliged to prevent crime and if an offence is alleged to have been committed it is 10 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 22-10-2023 00:59:09 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137766 2023:PHHC:137766 CRM-M-53407-2023 -11- its bounden duty to investigate into the offence and bring the offender to book. Once it investigates and finds an offence having been committed it is its duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. Once that is completed and the investigating officer submits report to the Court requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the Code its duty comes to an end. On a cognizance of the offence being taken by the Court the police function of investigation comes to an end subject to the provision contained in Section 173(8), there commences the adjudicatory function of the judiciary to determine whether an offence has been committed and if so, whether by the person or persons charged with the crime by the police in its report to the Court, and to award adequate punishment according to law for the offence proved to the satisfaction of the Court. There is thus a well defined and well demarcated function in the field of crime detection and its subsequent adjudication between the police and the Magistrate. This has been recognised way back in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [1944] L.R. 71 IA 203. ... ... ... ... ...
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 628 - Full Document

Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013

6. So far the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of UP and others, (SC) 2014(1) SCC (Crl.) 524 is concerned, the said judgment does not hold that the only efficacious remedy available to the complainant in case the Investigating Agency does not register an FIR is by way of an appropriate petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, as has already been mentioned hereinabove, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the non-registration of an FIR, he is at liberty to approach the Illaqa Magistrate of competent jurisdiction seeking the registration of an FIR on the basis of the allegations levelled in the applications (Annnexures P-4 to P-7).
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 18813 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1   2 3 Next