May 5, 2024 7:17 pm

HELD Investigation appears to be a sham, designed to conceal more than to investigate – Police has the primary duty to investigate on receiving report of the commission of a cognizable offence. This is a statutory duty under the Code of Criminal Procedure – Shri Satyarth Anirudh Pankaj, I.P.S. as the senior officer, State of Uttar Pradesh to carry out further investigation

Bysclaw

Dec 17, 2020

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

By sclaw

Related Post

“The charge sheet needs to include witness statements and include complete, clear entries that specify each accused person’s role” Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 173(2) – The appeals concern the nature of chargesheets filed by the state/police in some jurisdictions, particularly when they lack sufficient details of facts constituting the offense or relevant evidence – The main issue is whether chargesheets are being filed without adequate details or evidence, often merely reproducing the complainant’s details from the FIR, and whether this meets the legal requirements – The judgment discusses the legal position on the contents of a chargesheet as per Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with reference to the recent judgment in Dablu Kujur vs. State of Jharkhand – The Court quashed the chargesheet and summoning order, discharging the appellants, and clarified that the observations made will not affect any civil proceedings.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – 147, 342, 323, 307 and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 173(2) , 190 (1)(b) and 200 – Protest Petition – Magistrate to treat the Protest Petition as a complaint, proceeding according to Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C – The Court’s reasoning focused on the proper procedure for taking cognizance of an offence and the treatment of a Protest Petition when additional affidavits are filed – The conclusion emphasizes the Magistrate’s liberty to treat the Protest Petition as a complaint and the need to follow due process – The judicial opinion clarified the legal position regarding the Magistrate’s options upon receiving a closure report from the Investigating Officer.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

“FIR Quashed! Supreme Court Overturns Charges of Cheating After Finding Insufficient Evidence” – The Court finds that the FIR and charge-sheet, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the ingredients to attract the provision of Section 420 of IPC against the appellant – The Court discusses the principles for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings – The Court allows the appeal, quashing the order of the High Court and the FIR and charge-sheet against the appellant.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

Categories

Archives

You missed

Transfer Of Property Act

Transfer of Property Act, 1882- Sections 41 and 52 – Sale deed executed during the pendency of a suit for permanent injunction is invalid under the principle of lis pendens – The court held that the doctrine of lis pendens applies to maintain status quo and prevent multiple proceedings by parties in different forums – The court further clarified that even if Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable in its strict sense, the principles of lis pendens, which are based on justice, equity, and good conscience, would certainly be applicable – The court set aside the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and directed the defendant to accept the balance sale consideration and execute the agreement to sell in favor of the plaintiff within three months from the date of the judgment.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

“Acquittal in Murder Case: Prosecution Fails to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with 149 – Murder – Acquittal – The court found that the prosecution failed to provide reliable evidence linking the appellants to the crime, and the testimony of eyewitnesses was inconsistent and contradictory – The court also noted that the theory of “last seen together” was not sufficient to establish guilt, as the deceased was seen in the company of other individuals after being seen with the accused – The court set aside the convictions of the appellants and ordered their release, unless their custody was required for some other offences.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance) Rules, 1992 – Rule 6(h) – House Rent Allowance (HRA) – The appellant, a retired Inspector(Telecom) in Jammu and Kashmir Police, was charged with unauthorized House Rent Allowance (HRA) drawals and asked to repay Rs.3,96,814/-.- The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to HRA while sharing government accommodation allotted to his retired father – The appellant argued that the quarter was allotted to his father, a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, and he only occasionally shared it, thus he should not be charged HRA – The State contended that the appellant was not entitled to HRA as per Rule 6(h)(i) and (ii) because he shared rent-free accommodation allotted to his father – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision and the recovery notice – The Court found no application for Rule 6(h)(iv) in the appellant’s case and held that clauses 6(h)(i) and (ii) covered the controversy – The Court reasoned that since the appellant shared accommodation with a retired government servant, he was not entitled to claim HRA – The appeal is dismissed as devoid of force, and the recovery notice was justified in the eyes of the law

May 5, 2024 sclaw

”High Threshold Not Met: Supreme Court Blocks Trial of Additional Accused in Murder Case” Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 319 and 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Issuing of the summons – The appeals concern a summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the appellants to face trial for an offence under Section 302 IPC, based on a High Court decision dated 04.04.2023 – The main issue is the sufficiency of material against the appellants prompting the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C – The appellants argue that they were incorrectly named in the FIR and subsequent statements due to a longstanding family enmity, and there is no strong evidence against them – The State contends that even if the trial against existing accused has abated, there is no bar in summoning the appellants to start the trial afresh – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the summoning order, and the High Court’s judgment dismissing the Section 482 petition – The Court found that the evidence against the appellants was not strong enough to meet the higher degree of satisfaction required for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C – The Court referenced the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for strong and cogent evidence – The Court concluded that the Trial Court erred in issuing the summons, and the High Court should have quashed the order under Section 482 Cr.P.C – The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.

May 5, 2024 sclaw