Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

F L SHAIKH (JOBLESS)     19 March 2010

Sec156(3) crpc and sec 190 r/w 200 crpc

Iam about to file sec312 against my wife 1)Is it cognizable offense 2) How i can drag whole Family into this

Pls let me know under which private complaint i should proceed. 



Learning

 3 Replies

Devajyoti Barman (Advocate)     19 March 2010

You can file a complaint petition as propounded by sec 2(d) of CrPC before the CJM u/s 200 of CrPC making the allegations and containing all the necessary details. You will have to array the names of certain persons as witnesses and the complaint before the Magistrate should be followed by a complaint before the local Police Station.

Tarun Kalra LL.M, M.B.A (advocate)     03 April 2010

you can file a complaint under relevent sections, and prayer the magistrate to send it u/ 156(3) for investigation by police.

vipul vakharia (advocate)     07 July 2010

Dear ,

kindly gone through the  following  head notes of the jugement  and  decide .

if the  cognigable  offence  is  there , you have to  first ro file  complaint against  station house officer  of concern  police station and  If  do not write down  F I R u/s. 154 (1)  than ypu have  to  moove  Higher Officer  that is  D S P  by  sending the  copy of  complaint  by  RPAD even  thought  no action taken by police  than  ypu  have  to   file  complaint   agaisnt  judicial  Magistrat .

VIPUL  K  VAKHARIA  -  HIMATNAGAR  -  GUJARAT

 

 

 

HWAR PANDEY, J.

Criminal Misc. App. No.4477 of 2005, D/17.05.2005.

Badan Singh2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 743 (ALLAHABAD)

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

UMES

Vs

State of U.P.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 156(3)  -- - Cognizable offence - Committing of - Information given to Magistrate - Petition cannot be dismissed on ground of locus standi as any person coming to know of commission of cognizable offence is duty bound to report the same to Magistrate.  (Para 4)

 

Cases referred:

2004(49) ACC 847 (Para 4).

Counsels:

Mr.Ashutosh Tripathi, for the Applicant.

Petition allowed.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT           

Badan Singh Vs.State of U.P.     

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Cognizable offence - Committing of - Information given to Magistrate - Petition cannot be dismissed on ground of locus standi as any person coming to know of commission of cognizable offence is duty bound to report the same to Magistrate..........

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 302 (ALLAHABAD) : 2002 CRILJ 2907 (ALL) : 2002(2) CRIMES 488 : 2002(1) ALLCRIR 644 : 2002(44) ALLCRIC 670 : 2002 ALL LJ 1225

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

SUSHIL HARKAULI, J.

Crl.M.W.P.No.6448 of 2001, D/20.02.2002.

 

Gulab Chand Upadhyaya

Vs

State of U.P. & Ors.

 

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 156(3)  -- - Application for direction to police to register FIR and investigate - Can be ordered when: (1) full details of the accused are not known to the complainant and the same can be determined only as a result of investigation; (2) where recovery of abducted person or stolen property is required to be made by conducting raids or searches of suspected places or persons; (3) where for the purpose of launching a successful prosecution of the accused, evidence is required to be collected and preserved e.g. (a) sample of blood soaked soil is to be taken and kept sealed for fixing the place of incident; (b) recovery of case property is to be made and kept sealed; (c) recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; (d) preparation of inquest report; (e) witnesses are not known and have to be found out or discovered through the process of investigation.  (Para 22)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 156(3)  -- - Application for direction to police to register FIR and investigate the case - Magistrate ordered application to be registered in the Court as a criminal complaint and fixed date for recording statement of the complainant - Held, Magistrate rightly passed the order as the complainant is in possession of the complete details of all the accused as well as the witnesses who have to be examined and neither recovery is needed nor any such material evidence is requited to be collected which can be done only by the police - No 'investigation' would normally be required and the procedure of complaint case should be adopted.  (Para 23)

Cases referred:

2001(3) ACrR 2843 : 2002 CBC 36 (Para 12); 2001 CBC 430 (Para 18); 2001(1

Gulab Chand Upadhyaya Vs.

State of U.P. & Ors.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Application for direction to police to register FIR and investigate - Can be ordered when:

(1) full details of the accused are not known to the complainant and the same can be determined only as a result of investigation;

(2) where recovery of abducted person or stolen property is required to be made by conducting raids or searches of suspected places or persons;

(3) where for the purpose of launching a successful prosecution of the accused, evidence .........

 

 

2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 356 (ALLAHABAD)

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

K.N.SINHA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.6506 of 2003, D/05.09.2003.

Surya Nath Yadav

Vs

State of U.P. & Ors.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 156(2), 200  -- - Scope of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and that of complaint are different.  (Para 8)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 156(3)  -- - Application u/s 156(3) cannot be treated as a complaint.  (Para 12)

Cases referred:

2001(Suppl.) ACC 277 (Alld.) (Para 8); 2001(41) ACC 831 (Alld.) (Para 10); 1997(35) ACC 371 (SC) (Para 11).

Counsels:

Mr.P.N.Tripathi, for the Applicant

AGA, for the Respondent.

 

. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Surya Nath Yadav Vs.

State of U.P.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Application u/s 156(3) cannot be treated as a complaint..........

 

2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 634 (KARNATAKA) : 2004 CRI LJ (NOC) 32

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

N.S.VEERABHADRAIAH, J.

Criminal Revision Petition No.400 of 2003, D/20.10.2003.

 

P.R.Venugopal

Vs

S.M.Krishna

 

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 200, 202, 156(3), 155(2)  -- - Complaint - Reference to police for investigation - When allegations in complaint do not disclose any offence, complaint has to be thrown out and entertaining of such complaint also does not arise.  (Para 26)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 156(3)  -- - Complaint - Reference to police for investigation - Before taking cognizance or referring the matter for investigation to police, Magistrate should satisfy himself regarding the allegations in the complaint as to what the complainant is alleging and it should be within his personal knowledge.  (Para 31)

Cases referred:

2003(3) Kar.L.J. 280 : ILR 2003 Kar. 801 (Para 4); AIR 1955 SC 196 : 1955 Cri.L.J. 526 (SC) (Para 4); 1976(2) Kar.L.J. 60 (SC) : ILR 1976 Kar. 1208 (SC) : AIR 1976 SC 1672 : (1976) 3 SCC 252 (Para 4); AIR 1970 SC 45 : 1970 Cri.L.J. 9 (SC) (Para 4); AIR 1958 SC 119 : 1958 Cri.L.J. 260 (SC) (Para 4); AIR 2001 SC 116 : (2000) 8 SCC 710 : 2001 SCC (Cri.) 59 (Para 4); 1999 Cri.L.J. 3909 (Para 6); AIR 1977 SC 2433 : (1977) 4 SCC 540 (Para 8); 1966(2) Crimes 64 (SC) (Para 8)

 

Counsels:

Mr.F.V.Patil, for the Petitioner

Mr.C.V.Nagesh, Mr.S.Janardhana and Mr.M.Mahesh, for Respondents 1 to 3.

 

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Madhu Bala Vs.

Suresh Kumar & Ors.

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156(3) - When an order for investigation under S.156(3) of the Code is to be made the proper direction to the Police would be to register a case at the police station treating the complaint as the First Information Report and investigate into the same - Even if a Magistrate does not pass a direction to register a case, still the Police is duty bound to formally register a case and then investigate into the same - The provisions of the Code, do not in any .........

 

 

 

2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 331 (ALLAHABAD)

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

J.C.GUPTA &  D.R.CHAUDHARY, JJ.

Crl.M.W.P.No.2912 of 2002, D/18.06.2002.

Ram Singh & Ors.

Vs

State of U.P. & Ors.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 156(3), 190  -- - Application u/s 156(3) - Rejection by Magistrate - Sessions Judge in revision directed Magistrate to pass appropriate order directing police to register and investigate the case - Order upheld.  (Paras 3 & 4)

Cases referred:

2000(2) ACrR 1327 : 2000(41) ACC 214 (Para 2).

Counsels:

Mr.Nigamendra Shukla, for the Petitioners

A.G.A., for the Respondents.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA        

Joseph Mathuri Vs.Swami Sachidanand Harisakshi

                Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156(3), 190, 200 - Application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for directing police to register case filed in Court of Magistrate - Amounts to complaint.........

.2002(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 286 (M.P.) : 2002 CRILJ 3332 (M.P.) : 2002 MATLR 177 : 2001(3) MP LJ 394 : 2002(1) DMC 546 : 2002(1) MARRILJ 612

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

S.C.PANDEY, J.

Cri.Revision No.51 of 2001, D/16.05.2001.

Harbhajan Singh

Vs

State of M.P.

 

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 156(3), 190(a)  -- - Complaint - Magistrate after recording statement of complainant ordered investigation by Police u/s 156(3) and register the offence - Order not illegal - Mere examination of complainant does not mean that Magistrate has taken cognizance in a case filed upon complaint.  (Paras 6 to 9)

Cases referred:

AIR 1968 SC 117 (Para 4); AIR 2001 SC 571 (Para 4); AIR (37) 1950 Calcutta 437 (Para 8); AIR 1951 SC 207 (Para 8); AIR 2000 SC 2946 (Para 8).

Counsels:

Mr.S.C.Datt, for the Applicant

Smt.C.Sharma, Panel Lawyer, for the Non-applicant.

Revision dismissed.2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 765 (S.C.) : 2006(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 273 (S.C.) : 2006(54) ACC 530 : 2006 CRI.L.J. 788 (SC) : (2006) ACR 101 : 2006(1) CR.R.(SC) 365 : AIR 2006 SC 705 : 2006(1) SCC (CRI) 460 : 2006(1) CRIMES 81 (SC) : 2006(1) JCC 189 : 2006(2) RAJ LW 962 ; 2006(2) PAT LJR 94 : 2006(33) OCR 345 : 2006(1) KER LT 939 : JT 2006(1) SC 10

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ARIJIT PASAYAT &  S.H.KAPADIA, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2006 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2305 of 2004), D/02.01.2006.

Mohd.Yousuf

Vs

Smt.Afaq Jahan & Anr.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 156(3), 202  -- - Complaint - Police investigation - Magistrate can order investigation u/s 156(3) before taking cognizance - In that event Magistrate is not to examine the complainant - Police can investigate only on recording an FIR as indicated in S.154 Cr.P.C. - Even if Magistrate does not say in so many words to register an FIR even then it is the duty of the officer in charge of police station to register FIR as police officer can take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter.  (Para 11)

Cases referred:

2001(2) SCC 628 (Para 12); AIR 1961 SC 986 (Para 13); AIR 1959 SC 1118 (Para 13).

Counsels:

Mr.Samir Ali Khan, Mr.Amit Kumar, for the Appellant

Mr.Shakil Ahmed Syed, Mr.Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Mr.Arohi Bhalla, Mr.Garvesh Kabra, for the Respondents.

 

Appeal allowed.

2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 353 (P&H)

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

R.C.KATHURIA, J.

Criminal Misc. No.29824-M of 2001, D/05.03.2002.

Jarmal Singh

Vs

State of Punjab

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 173, 156  -- - Reinvestigation - Court can direct reinvestigation but direction cannot be given to police to submit the challan after reinvestigation.  (Paras 9 & 10)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 173, 156  -- - Report u/s 173 - There are three options to the Magistrate namely, (i) to accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process; or (ii) may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding; or (iii) may direct further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code.  (Para 7)

Cases referred:

AIR 1968 SC 117 (Para 6); AIR 1980 SC 1883 (Para 7); AIR 1955 SC 196 (Para 9); 2000(2) RCR (Crl.) 637 (Para 10).

Counsels:

Mr.Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, for the Petitioner

Mr.N.S.Sitta, D.A.G., Punjab, for the Respondent No.1; Mr.P.P.S.Duggal, for the Respondent 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 451 (P&H)

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

Criminal Misc.No.34815-M of 2001, D/02.09.2002.

Mithlesh Kumari

Vs

State of Punjab

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 156(3), 154, 190, 482  -- - Complaint to police - SHO not registering FIR - Complainant should first exhaust remedy of approaching Magistrate before approaching High Court under S.482 Cr.P.C. - Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not a routine remedy, but is conferred to rare cases presenting special features.  (Para 22)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154, 156, 202, 210  -- - Complaint to police - If it discloses cognizable offence then SHO is bound to register FIR - In case of doubt SHO can first check the information in a summary manner and inform the complainant of his decision - Erroneous decision of SHO can be corrected by S.P. or Magistrate.  (Paras 18, 19 & 22)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 190, 154(3), 156(3), 210  -- - Criminal complaint - Magistrate has power to direct investigation by Police - This includes power to direct registration of FIR - Magistrate can also call for report from Police about progress of investigation if complaint is filed before Magistrate u/s 210 Cr.P.C.  (Paras 18 & 19)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154, 156(3)  -- - Complaint to police - SHO refusing to register FIR - Complainant approaching Magistrate to direct Police to register case - Magistrate calling upon complainant to bring preliminary evidence - Held, order of Magistrate is valid.  (Paras 2 & 22)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 202, 190  -- - Criminal complaint - Report from police - Mere asking for a report from police does not debar Magistrate from taking cognizance on the basis of complaint.  (Para 19)

Cases referred:

1997(3) RCR 679 (Para 3); 2001(1) RCR 335 (Para 3); AIR 2001 SC 2113 (Para 11); AIR 1964 SC 221 (Para 12); AIR 1971 SC 520 (Para 12); AIR 1991 SC 1260 (Para 13); AIR 2000 SC 4112 (2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 79 (KARNATAKA)

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

M.P.CHINNAPPA, J.

Criminal Petition No.1309 of 2001 connected with Criminal Petition Nos.4370, 4109, 4015 and 1372 of 2001 and 3650 of 1999, D/07.03.2002.

N.Rajachar & Ors.

Vs

Kodandarama & Anr.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 200, 156(3), 36  -- - Investigation by police - Order by Magistrate - Section 156(3) of the Code empowers a Magistrate to direct such officer in charge of the police station to investigate any cognizable case over which such Magistrate has jurisdiction and not a superior police officer.  (Paras 15 & 16).

 

 

Cases referred:

AIR 1980 SC 326 : (1980)1 SCC 554 : 1980 SCC (Cri.) 272 : 1980 Cri.L.J. 98 (SC) (Para 12); AIR 2001 SC 668 : (2001)3 SCC 333 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 524 (Para 14).

Counsels:

M/s. S.Balan and Associates, for the Petitioners in Cri.P.No.1309 of 2001; Mr.H.S.Chandramouli, for the Petitioner in Cri.P.No.4370 of 2001; Mr.C.V.Nagesh, for the Petitioners in Cri.P.Nos.4109 and 1372 of 2001 and 3650 of 1999; Mr.Syed Khaleel Pasha, for the Petitioner in Cri.P.No.4015 of 2001; Mr.B.C.Muddappa, Additional State Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-1 in Cri.P.Nos.4370 and 4109 of 2001 and for the Respondent-2 in Cri.P.No.1309, 4015 and 1372 of 2001 and 3650 of 1999

Mr.D.Ashokan, for the Respondent-1 in Cri.P.No.4015 of 2001; Mr.H.M.Raveesh and Smt.Kousalya Raveesh, for the Respondent-1 in Cri.P.No.1372 of 2001; Mr.K.Suman, for the Respondent-1 in Cri.P.No.3650 of 1999; Respondent-1 is served and unrepresented in Cri.P.No.1309 of 2001.

Petition allowed.

2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 400 (P&H)

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

M.M.KUMAR, J.

Criminal Misc. No.41251-M of 2003, D/09.08.2003.

Sukhwinder Kaur

Vs

Kulwinder Singh & Ors.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 200, 202  -- - Complaint - Magistrate by recording preliminary evidence cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence.  (Para 10)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 202, 156(3), 200  -- - Complaint - Preliminary evidence recorded - Thereafter report of SHO called - Held, by recording preliminary evidence Magistrate cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence - Before issuance of process by Magistrate it cannot be concluded that cognizance has been taken by him because he has yet to make up his mind whether on the basis of the available evidence a prima facie case is made out to issue process or take any other recourse - Order upheld.  (Paras 4, 9 & 10)

Cases referred:

2003(1) RCR (Crl.) 363 (Para 3); AIR 1964 SC 1541 (Para 6); 1970(3) SCC 10 (Para 7); AIR 1951 SC 207 (Para 8); AIR 1972 SC 2639 (Para 8); AIR 1976 SC 1672 (Para 8).

 

 

Counsels:

Mr.G.S.Bhatia, for the Petitioner.

Petition dismissed.

2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 50 (P&H)

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

M.M.KUMAR, J.

CRM No.46101 of 2003, D/28.10.2003.

Ram Rattan

Vs

State of Haryana & Ors.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 210(2)  -- - Cross case - Complaint case and police case in respect of same offence - Magistrate is under an obligation to try both the cases together.  (Para 6)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 210(2), 156  -- - Cross case - FIR lodged but challan not submitted - In the meanwhile complaint filed in respect of same offence - Magistrate is required to stay the proceedings or can refer the complaint to police under S.156(3) Cr.P.C. - In case police report is submitted and a complaint has been filed then Magistrate is under an obligation to try both the cases together.  (Paras 5 & 6)

Counsels:

Ms.Kiran Bala Jain, for the Petitioner

Mr.G.P.S.Nagra, AAG, Haryana, for the Respondents.

Petition allowed.2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 128 (BOMBAY)

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

V.G.PALSHIKAR &  D.B.BHOSALE, JJ.

Writ Petition Nos.661, 932, 934, 900, 950 of 2003 along with Miscellaneous Application Nos.3002, 3023 of 2003 in W.P.No.900 of 2003, D/28.07.2003.

B.S.Khatri

Vs

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 156(3), 195, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 120B, 420, 464, 465, 467, 471, Constitution of India, Article 226  -- - Complaint u/s 120-B, 420, 464, 465, 467 and 471 IPC - Prior to taking cognizance order of investigation made - Order cannot be interfered exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 on mere possibility of operation of bar u/s 195 Cr.P.C.  (Paras 12 to 31)

Cases referred:

1992 Cri.L.J. 354 (Para 15); 1994 Cri.L.J. 1981 (Para 15); 1999(2) Apex Court Journal 610 (S.C.) (Para 15); AIR 1960 SC 866 (Para 15); C.R.A. No. 414 of 1985, D/25.11.1985 (Para 15); 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 341 : 2001 Cri.L.J. 7 (Para 15); 2002 SCC (Cri) 1912 (Para 15); AIR (88) 1951 Punjab 869 (Para 15); AIR 1978 SC 290 (Para 15); 1982 Cri.L.J. 2177 (Para 15); 1989 Cri.L.J. 1833 (Para 15); AIR 1984 SC 1108 (Para 15); AIR 1981 SC 1417 (Para 15); AIR 1968 SC 19 (Para 15); 1977 SCC (Cri.) 548 (Para 15); (1998) 2 SCC 493 (Para 15); 2000 SCC (Cri) 193 (Para 15); AIR 1953 SC 148 (Para 15); 1991 Mh.L.J. 1004 : 1991(3) BCR 735 (Para 15); (1984) 3 SCC 92 (Para 18); 1980 Cri.LJ. 98 (Para 18); AIR 1988 SC 419 (Para 18); (2000) 8 ACC 775 (Para 18); (2001) 8 SCC 645 (Para 18); AIR 1962 SC 847 (Para 18); Indian Appeals Vol. XLIII-257 (Para 18); 1963(2) Cri.LJ. 698 (Para 18); AIR (37) 1950 PC 31 (Para 18); AIR 1961 Gujarat 117 (Para 18); (1999) 8 SCC 737 (Para 18); (1998) 2 SCC 391 (Para 18); 1971 (2) SCC 376 (Para 18); 1994 Supp (3) SCC 748 (Para 18); (1996) 3 SCC 533 (Para 18); (1997) 2 SCC 397 (Para 19); (1999) 8 SCC 651 (Para 20); (1999) 2 SCC 651 (Para 20); 2002(2) JCC 1103 (Para 35).

Counsels:

Mr.Ameet Desai with Mr.Mihir Ghewala, Mr.Ajay Vazikani with Mr.Ya

 

VIPUL VAKHARIA   ADVOCATE  HIMATNAGAR   GUJARAT

 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading
Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads


Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query