Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Guruduth Prabhu And Ors. vs M.S. Krishna Bhat And Ors. on 18 February, 1999
Page 4 of page 9
5
3.2 It was further submitted, at bar, by Sh.Suraj Bhan - Adv. That the matter
is his personal dispute. The complainant is his son and an employee of Delhi
District Courts. Counsel is a retired judicial officer, who is being victimised by
the tenants in collusion with various public authorities.
4 I have heard the ld. Counsel and perused the complaint, documents
furnished and the status report. There is no dispute with the preposition of law
that on the basis of information disclosed, if a cognizable offence is made out
FIR ought to be registered. However, before issuance of direction for
registration of FIR or for conducting investigation u/sec.156 (3) Cr.P.C.; it is
incumbent upon the court to look into the allegations and find out if the
allegations constitute any cognizable offence to have been committed. A
Division Bench of the Karnataka High court, in the decision reported as 1999
Cri LJ 3909 Guruduth Prabhu and Ors. Vs. Krishna Bhat and Ors. observed as
under:
"If every complaint filed u/sec.200 Cr.P.C. is referred to the Police
u/sec.156 (3) without application of mind about the disclosure of an
offence, there is every likelihood of unscrupulous complainants, in order
to harass the alleged accused named by them in their complaints,
making bald allegations just to see that the alleged accused are harassed
by the police, who have no other go except to investigate as ordered by
the Magistrate. Therefore, it is mandatory for the Magistrate to apply
his mind to the allegations made in the complaint and in only cases
which disclose an offence, the Magistrate gets jurisdiction to order an
investigation by the police."
Section 10 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
State vs Mohd.Iqbal Ghazi & Ors. on 12 September, 2008
Page 5 of page 9
6
Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, Honbe High Court of Delhi in
State Vs. Mohd. Iqbal Ghazi reported as (2008) 154 DLT 481 held as under:
"It is apparent that the principle that every information relateable to the
commission of a cognizable offence must lead to the registration of a FIR
has to be understood in its correct perspective, being that, if the
information is prima facie credible; is definite and has a substance, the
FIR must be registered. But where the information is vague and prima
facie lacks credibility, an FIR need not be registered and some
preliminary inquiry would be permissible to find out whether the
information sought to be lodged has any substance therein or not."
5.1 Directing investigation or lodging of FIR against a public servant for
offences under the PC Act has serious implications. It may adversely impact his
career, reputation, recognition, selfesteem and social life. The allegations
might be preposterous, absolutely false or half truths. The motive of vendata,
in making the allegations, can also not be ruled out. Thus, it becomes
imperative to evaluate the allegations.