Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.24 seconds)
Hareshbhai Babubhai Makwana vs State Of Gujarat on 17 January, 2019 cites

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

6. If the petitioners is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent No.3, the petitioners may approach the Senior Officer of the respondent No.3 under section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If the petitioners approaches such Senior Officer under section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he shall look into the complaint of the petitioners and decide the same bearing in mind the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) and in the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra) within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such complaint.
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 18813 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

The State Of Telangana vs Habib Abdullah Jeelani & Ors on 6 January, 2017

6. If the petitioners is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent No.3, the petitioners may approach the Senior Officer of the respondent No.3 under section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If the petitioners approaches such Senior Officer under section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he shall look into the complaint of the petitioners and decide the same bearing in mind the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) and in the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra) within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such complaint.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 1683 - D Misra - Full Document

P. Sirajuddin Etc vs State Of Madras Etc on 9 March, 1970

The Court also referred to the authorities in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras and CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh and finally held that what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In Page 4 of 7 R/SCR.A/10332/2018 ORDER such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible, etc. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence."
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 440 - G K Mitter - Full Document

Superintendent Of Police, C.B.I. And ... vs Tapan Kr. Singh on 10 April, 2003

5. Bearing in mind the aforementioned ratio laid down by the Apex Court as well as the contents of the said complaint made by the petitioners, the respondent No.3 shall look into the said written complaint of the petitioners and lodge the first information report if any cognizable offence is made out therein; if not, for the limited purpose of knowing as to whether cognizable offence is revealed, the preliminary inquiry shall be conducted. The petitioners shall be forwarded a copy of the first information report, if any registered, at the residence of the petitioners Page 5 of 7 R/SCR.A/10332/2018 ORDER forthwith. In the event, the respondent No.3 chooses not to lodge the first information report, the petitioners shall be communicated in writing the brief reasons accordingly. Such exercise shall be completed by the respondent No.3 at the earliest without further loss of time, but not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 455 - B P Singh - Full Document
1