Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)
Mujesh Kumar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 29 March, 2022 cites

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

"12. It should also be noted that Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing their duties and where the Magistrate finds that the police have not done their duty or not investigated satisfactorily, he can direct the Police to carry out the investigation properly, and can monitor the same. (see Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409).
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 8229 - M Katju - Full Document

Dilawar Singh vs State Of Delhi on 5 September, 2007

13. The same view was taken by this Court in Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi (2007) 12 SCC 641: JT (2007) 10 SC 585 (JT vide para 17). We would further clarify that even if an FIR has been registered and even if the police has made the investigation, or is actually making the investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such a person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper investigation and take other suitable steps and pass such order(s) as he thinks necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. All these powers a Magistrate enjoys under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 344 - A Pasayat - 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 (1980) 1 SCC 554 (SCC : AIR para 19).
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 1183 - D A Desai - Full Document

M. Subramaniam vs S. Janaki on 20 March, 2020

Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2008) 2 SCC 409 which judgment was followed by two Hon'ble Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others (2016) 6 SCC 277 r and both these judgments in turn have now been followed by three Hon'ble Judges Bench in M.Subramaniam and another vs. S.Janaki and another (2020) 2 RCR (Criminal) 788 wherein it has been observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 2689 - S Khanna - Full Document

Mohd. Yousuf vs Smt. Afaq Jahan & Anr on 2 January, 2006

12. Thus in Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan (2006) 1 SCC 627 this Court observed: (SCC p. 631, para 11) "11. The clear position therefore is that any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:11:45 :::CIS 11 the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so. After all registration of an FIR involves only .
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 565 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1