tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959663745656332605.post308904514449805020..comments2024-03-29T17:35:55.455+05:30Comments on The Proof of Guilt: Three Judges of the Supreme Court on Sections 156(3) and 202 Cr.P.C.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959663745656332605.post-68732142941415592522015-04-20T15:41:15.517+05:302015-04-20T15:41:15.517+05:30Peanfe.
Peanfe.
Peanfe.
As for turning cognizance...Peanfe.<br />Peanfe.<br />Peanfe.<br /><br />As for turning cognizance on its head, Paras Nath Singh and Anil Kumar/M.K. Aiyappa do a much better job than Ramdev Food.<br /><br />Peanfe.<br />Peanfe.<br />Peanfe.Peanfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09892408987861913307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959663745656332605.post-15174188384065453972015-04-20T15:37:37.576+05:302015-04-20T15:37:37.576+05:30Peanfe.
Peanfe.
Peanfe.
Court's*
Peanfe.
Pea...Peanfe.<br />Peanfe.<br />Peanfe.<br /><br />Court's*<br /><br />Peanfe.<br />Peanfe.<br />Peanfe.Peanfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09892408987861913307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959663745656332605.post-61213708584680360192015-04-20T15:36:49.740+05:302015-04-20T15:36:49.740+05:30Peanfe.
Peanfe.
Peanfe.
I suspect that the courts...Peanfe.<br />Peanfe.<br />Peanfe.<br /><br />I suspect that the courts concern in limiting 156(3) is the bona fides of complaints/protest petitions that come before magistrates. <br /><br />The "credibility of information available" may not refer to the merits of the case (that would affect the taking of cognizance) at all, but rather, the conduct of the complainant, the fact of whether the requirements of 154(3) were complied with, and on what grounds the police has refused to investigate/filed a closure. <br /><br />Information available cannot be equated to the information in the complaint that is placed before the magistrate, and is at least wider, if not entirely different. <br /><br />Read from this perspective, even Priyanka Srivastava seems coherent, since a 156(3) now demands an affidavit to be submitted by the complainant, so that the complainant is now exposed to the threat of perjury.<br /><br />Considering that the magistrate is at the point where the legitimacy of the discretion exercised by by the police hierarchy, upon a complaint/protest petition that may be motivated, application of mind seems warranted. <br /><br />Your sweeping conclusion that the most inaccurate interpretation of Justice Misra's judgment is exactly what he meant, and that someone occupying such an esteemed position in the Judiciary is completely unaware of the scheme of the cRpc is shaky.<br /><br />Peanfe.<br />Peanfe.<br />Peanfe.Peanfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09892408987861913307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959663745656332605.post-4662349649912672382015-04-16T17:48:21.475+05:302015-04-16T17:48:21.475+05:30Comment by Gautam Bhatia, posted by me due to some...Comment by Gautam Bhatia, posted by me due to some technical snag:<br />It is also important to note that Ramdev Food Products substantially muddies the waters on the issue of the relationship betweens Sections 154 and 156(3) of the CrPC.<br /><br />In Lalita Kumari vs Gov't of UP (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/10239019/), a Constitution Bench of the SC clearly held that under S. 154, if the information presented to the Police makes out a cognisable offence, then the Police must mandatorily register an FIR. Here is the relevant extract(s) from Lalita Kumari:<br /><br />“… the condition that is sine qua non for recording an FIR under Section 154 of the Code is that there must be information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence. If any information disclosing a cognizable offence is led before an officer in charge of the police station satisfying the requirement of Section 154(1), the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information. The provision of Section 154 of the Code is mandatory and the concerned officer is duty bound to register the case on the basis of information disclosing a cognizable offence… the provisions of Section 154(1) of the Code, read in the light of the statutory scheme, do not admit of conferring any discretion on the officer in-charge of the police station for embarking upon a preliminary inquiry prior to the registration of an FIR… in other words, reasonableness or credibility of the said information is not a condition precedent for the registration of a case.”<br /><br />The last line is particularly important, because when it comes to S. 156(3), Ramdev Food Products directly contradicts it. This leads to an anomalous situation where the Police cannot look at the credibility or the veracity of information before registering an FIR under S. 154, but if I go to a Magistrate under S. 156(3) asking for directions to the Police to register an FIR under S. 154 - in other words, if I am aggrieved by the fact that the Police are not following Lalita Kumari's dictum, and I attempt to obtain my remedy under the CrPC - then *at that stage*, the veracity/credibility of the information will be examined anyway - only, by a Magistrate. So while technically, Lalita Kumari and Ramdev Food Products deal with different sections, conceptually, the results seem to be at odds. <br /><br />Also interesting to note that four days after Ramdev Food Products, in Priyanka Srivastava vs State of UP, Crl. Appeal No. 781 of 2012, the position in Lalita Kumari was reiterated. Justice Dipak Misra held:<br /><br />"[where] A preliminary enquiry is necessary, it is not for the purpose for verification or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.” But then he also referred to the five categories stipulated in para 120.6 of Lalita Kumari (also the foundation of the reasoning in Ramdev Food Products), and holds:<br /><br />"We have referred to the aforesaid pronouncement for the purpose that on certain circumstances the police is also required to hold a preliminary enquiry whether any cognizable offence is made out or not.”<br /><br />Now, there are two ways you can read this sentence. One is that the police are required to hold a prelim enquiry *regardless* of whether a cognizable offence is made out or not. The other is that the police are required to hold a prelim enquiry *in order to find out* whether a cognizable offence is made out or not. The sentence, which is slightly infelicitous, is open to both interpretations, but with radically different results! Lalita Kumari is five judges, Ramdev Food Products is three, and Priyanka Srivastava is two. So what the present position of law is, I suppose, is anybody's guessAbhinav Sekhrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05636505529930634000noreply@blogger.com