Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.31 seconds)Section 156 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 202 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 154 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013
In case of Lalita Kumari (supra) the controversy revolved around the registration of F.I.R in cognizable cases by the Police Officer. However, it did not dwelve upon scope and ambit of power vested in Magistrate by virtue of provision of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which is, for ready reference, quoted herein below :-
Suresh Chand Jain vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Another on 10 January, 2001
"13. It is clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Suresh Chandra Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (42) ACC 459 : ((2001) 2 SCC 628 : AIR 2001 SC 571), that a Magistrate has the authority to treat an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint.
Gopal Das Sindhi And Ors. vs State Of Assam And Anr. on 20 January, 1961
This will become clear from the reference in the said report to the case of Gopal Das Sindhi v. State of Assam, AIR 1961 SC 986, in which the following observations were made: (Para 7)
"If the Magistrate had not taken cognizance of the offence on the complaint filed before him, he was not obliged to examine the complainant on oath and the witnesses present at the time of filing of the complaint. We cannot read the provisions of Section 190 to mean that once a complaint is filed, a Magistrate is bound to take cognizance if the facts stated in the complaint disclose the commission of any offence. We are unable to construe the word 'may' in Section 190 to mean 'must'. The reason is obvious. A complaint disclosing cognizable offences may well justify a police for investigation. There is no reason why the time of the Magistrate should be wasted when primarily the duty to investigate in cases involving cognizable offences is with the police. On the other hand, there may be occasions when the Magistrate may exercise his discretion and 'Take' cognizance of a cognizable offence."
Ram Babu Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 13 November, 2014
In this reference a Full Bench decision of this High Court in Ram Babu Gupta v. State of U.P., 2001 (43) ACC 50 : (2001 All LJ 1587) may be referred in which the Hon'ble High Court held as under:
Yogendra Nath Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 5 April, 1999
7. Moreover, this court in the case of Yogendra Singh v. State of UP, 2005 (51) ACC 890 : (2005 All LJ 1518) (Alld), has held that application filed under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. can be treated as complaint under Section 200 Cr. P.C. and no separate complaint is required to be filed.