Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.30 seconds)Section 154 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 200 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Pandharinath Narrayan Patil And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 30 March, 2015
20] The learned counsel Shri Ghadge, further criticized the
impugned order of the learned Magistrate passed under Section 156(3) of the
Cr.P.C. on the ground that there was no application of judicious mind and
impugned order was passed in mechanical manner. Therefore, the impugned
FIR is required to be quashed and set aside as same is registered pursuant to
the erroneous and illegal order passed by the learned Magistrate after
::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2017 01:01:01 :::
{16}
crapln 4878.16 f.odt
exercising the discretion under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In support of his
submission he relied upon the judicial pronouncement of the Division Bench
of this Court, in the matter of Pandharinath Narayan Patil vs. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in 2015(2) Bom.C.R. (cri.) 358.
21] The minute scrutiny of impugned order of the learned
Magistrate passed after exercising discretion under Section 156(3) of the
Cr.P.C. reflects that the arguments propounded on behalf of Shri Ghadge
appears not appreciable and comprehensible one. In contrast, the impugned
order adumbrates that the learned Magistrate, at the threshold had taken
every care and verified the contents of the complainant as well as affidavits
Exhibits 11 and 5, appended with the complaint. The learned Magistrate also
dealt with the controversial issue of requirement of prior sanction under
Section 197 of Cr.P.C. against the applicants public servants. The learned
Magistrate expressed the findings that the allegations of misappropriation
cannot be considered as part of official duties of the applicants. Therefore,
he arrived at the conclusion that the cognizable offence was shown to have
been committed. He preferred to exercise the discretion and directed the
police to investigate the allegations under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. We
do not find any infirmity or error in the impugned order passed by the
learned Magistrate.
Mr.Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2009
24] The Full Bench of this Court at its Principal Seat, in the case of
Panchabhai Popatbhai Butani vs. State of Maharashtra and others,
(2010)1 Mh.L.J.421, dealt with the issue, whether in absence of complaint
to the police, a complaint can be made directly before the Magistrate and
after elaborate discussion and deliberation of the various principles of law, it
has been delineated that the provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. should be
invoked normally before taking recourse of the power of the Magistrate
under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. but this dictum of law is not free from
exception and there can be cases, where non-compliance of section 154(3)
would not divest the jurisdiction of the Magistrate in terms of Section 156(3)
of Cr.P.C. The relevant portion from para.No.64 of the aforesaid precedent,
is reproduced hereinbelow :-