Two seperate incident were timely reported to police station
Police generated NCs on each incident in spite of cognizable offence established on each complaint.
The victim exposed the facts of follow up on social media.
two separate cognizable incidents were merged and a single FIR was generated.
Two separate incidents were timely reported to police station
Police generated NCs on each incident in spite of cognizable offence established on each complaint.
The victim exposed the facts of follow up on social media.
two separate cognizable incidents were merged and a single FIR was generated.
Trail commenced ..every facts in chargesheet is challenged under 340 and 195 crpc.
*High court Question of law*
whether writ for direction of two seperate FIR is maintainable after commencement of trial ?
Case law Any to support the ground of writ being maintainable.
Trail commenced ..every facts in chargesheet is challenged under 340 and 195 crpc.
*High court Question of law*
whether writ for direction of two seperate FIR is maintainable after commencement of trial ?
Supreme court in a recent judgement stated as follows
The second FIR, in our opinion, would be maintainable not only because there were different versions but when new discovery is made on factual foundations. Discoveries may be made by the police authorities at a subsequent stage. Discovery about a larger conspiracy can also surface in another proceeding, as for example, in a case of this nature. If the police authorities did not make a fair investigation and left out conspiracy aspect of the matter from the purview of its investigation, in our opinion, as and when the same surfaced, it was open to the State and/ or the High Court to direct investigation in respect of an offence which is distinct and separate from the one for which the FIR had already been lodged.
60. An order of further investigation in terms of Section 173 (8) of the Code by the State in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 36 thereof stands on a different footing. The power of the investigating officer to make further investigation in exercise of its statutory jurisdiction under Section 173(8) of the Code and at the instance of the State having regard to Section 36 thereof read with Section 3 of the Police Act, 1861 should be considered in different contexts. Section 173(8) of the Code is an enabling provision.
Only when cognizance of an offence is taken, the learned Magistrate may have some say. But, the restriction imposed by judicial legislation is merely for the purpose of upholding the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. It is one thing to say that the court will have supervisory jurisdiction to ensure a fair investigation, as has been observed by a Bench of this Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2008) 2 SCC 409], correctness whereof is open to question, but it is another thing to say that the investigating officer will have no jurisdiction whatsoever to make any further investigation without the express permission of the Magistrate.
