Scribd
Upload
19 views

Interview Question

WWWWWWWWWW

Uploaded by

03fl22bcl033
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
19 views

Interview Question

WWWWWWWWWW

Uploaded by

03fl22bcl033
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

LALITHA KUMARI V. STATE OF U.

1. The FIR is a pertinent document in the criminal law


procedure of our country and its main object from the point
of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion
and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is
to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so
as to be able to take suitable steps to trace and to bring to
book the guilty

Interpretation of Section 154:

It may be mentioned in this connection that the first and foremost principle of
interpretation of a statute in every system of interpretation is the literal rule of
interpretation. All that we have to see at the very outset is what does the provision
say?

As a result, the language employed in Section 154 is the determinative factor of the
legislative intent. A plain reading of Section 154(1) of the Code provides that any
information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an
officer-in-charge of a police station shall be reduced into F writing by him or under
his direction. There is no ambiguity in the language of Section 154(1) of the Code

2(g) - "inquiry" means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by
a Magistrate or Court."

Hence, it is clear that inquiry under the Code is relatable to a judicial act and not to
the steps taken by the Police which are either investigation after the stage of Section
154 of the F Code or termed as 'Preliminary Inquiry and which are prior to the
registration of FIR, even though, no entry in the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily
Diary has been made.

Though there is reference to the term 'preliminary inquiry' and 'inquiry under
Sections 159 and Sections 202 and G 340 of the Code, that is a judicial exercise
undertaken by the Court and not by the Police and is not relevant for the purpose of
the present reference.

2. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE


JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1662 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP


(CRIMINAL) NO. 3632 OF 2019)

THE STATE OF TELANGANA .....APPELLANT(S

V.
SRI MANAGIPET @ MANGIPET SARVESHWAR
REDDY .....RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1663 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP


(CRIMINAL) NO. 4074 OF 2019) -

The Court concluded that the registration of an FIR is mandatory


under Section 154 of the Code if the information discloses
commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is
permissible in such a situation. This court held as under:

“111. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the


information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no
preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but
indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be
conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or
not.

iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR
must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the
complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first
informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons
in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if
cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring
officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him
discloses a cognizable offence.

v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or


otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the
information reveals any cognizable offence.

vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be


conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The
category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes

19

b) Commercial offences
c) Medical negligence cases d) Corruption cases.”
3. PETITIONER:
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
CH. BHAJAN LAL AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT21/11/1990
BENCH:
PANDIAN, S.R. (J)
BENCH:
PANDIAN, S.R. (J)
REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)
CITATION:
1992 AIR 604
1992 SCC Supl. (1) 335 JT 1990 (4) 650
1990 SCALE (2)1066
JUDGMENT:
Anr., [1988] 2 SCC 602; State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh,
[1980] 1 SCR 1071; relied on.
P.V. Jagannath Rao & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors.,
[1968] 3 SCR 789; Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and
Ors., [1983] 1 SCC 438 and Sheonandan Paswan v. State of
Bihar & Ors., [1987] 1 SCC 288; referred to.
3.1. If any information disclosing a cognizable offence
is laid before an officer-in-charge of a police station
satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Crimi-
nal Procedure Code, the said police officer has no other
option except to enter the substance thereof in the pre-
scribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the
basis of such information. [279G]
3.2. Though a police officer cannot investigate a non-
CONGNIZABLE offence, he can investigate a non-cognizable offence
under
the order of a Magistrate having power to try such non-
cognizable case or commit the same for trial within the
terms under Section 155(2) of the Code but subject to Section
155(3) of the Code. Further, under the newly introduced
Sub-section (4) to Section 155, where a case relates to two
offences to which atleast one is cognizable, the case shall
be deemed to be a cognizable case notwithstanding that the
other offences are non-cognizable and, therefore, under such
circumstances the police officers can investigate such
offences with the same powers as he has while investigating
a cognizable offence. [279H; 280A-B]

4. Allahabad High Court

Ranjeet vs State Of Up on 13 February, 2024

The argument of learned counsel for the applicant as to whether FIR


can be lodged without previous sanction of the Central government as
provided under Section 15 of the Passports Act, 1967 requires further
exploration.

14. The word used in section 15 of the Passports Act, 1967 is


'prosecution' and not the 'FIR.' As per the sixth edition of the
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY the word 'prosecution' is defined as:
'a proceeding instituted and carried on by due course of law, before
a competent tribunal, for the purpose of determining the guilt or
innocence of a person charged with crime.'
15. Thus, the proper interpretation of the provision would be that
for institution of a First Information Report (FIR) and investigation
thereupon, there is no obligatory requirement to secure prior
sanction, even against a public servant, as per the mandate of
Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It shall equally
apply to the persons charged under The Passports Act, 1967. When
obtaining sanction is a prerequisite for initiating legal
proceedings, it must be secured at the stage of presentation of
charge sheet before the magistrate and taking of the cognizance
thereupon.

State of Haryana & Ors vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335

Disposing of the appeal, this Court,


HELD: 1. The judgment of the High Court quashing the
First Information Report is set aside as not being legally
and factually sustainable in law. However, the
commencement
as well as the entire investigation, if any, so far done is
quashed on the ground that the third appellant (SHO) is not
clothed with valid legal authority to take up the investiga-
tion and proceed with the same within the meaning of Section
5A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. ---

You might also like