Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.71 seconds)Section 438 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 471 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 173 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 439 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Telangana vs Habib Abdullah Jeelani & Ors on 6 January, 2017
8 The High Court was of the view that (i) the truth of the allegations was a
matter which had to be ascertained by the Investigating Officer during the
course of investigation; and (ii) in view of the seriousness of the allegations,
no relief was being granted to the second respondent (the first accused).
However, the High Court proceeded to issue a blanket restraint against the
arrest of the third respondent (the second accused) by directing that the
police would complete the investigation and file a final report in accordance
with law. We are affirmatively of the view that the direction of the High Court
is unsustainable in law. The narration in the earlier part of the judgment
would indicate that the registration of the FIR was preceded by a report
submitted by the Collector, Khammam to the High Court which had
mandated an enquiry into the allegation in regard to the fabrication of a
judicial record. It was pursuant to the report filed by the Collector, that the
High Court directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to proceed on the
administrative side in accordance with law. An FIR has been registered
involving a serious allegation in regard to the fabrication of judicial records.
9 In The State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and Ors.1, a
controversy arose before this Court where the High Court while declining to
exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for quashing an investigation, restrained the investigating agency
from arresting the accused persons during investigation. This Court held that
that such a direction amounted to an exercise under Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure without satisfying any of the conditions stipulated
1 (2017) 2 SCC 779
Crl.A.274-275/2021
6
under that section. This Court held: