25% OFF on all LCI Courses. Offer valid till 5th Oct. Use Code: DUS25
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Raghav Arora   22 April 2022

Should I 'Not Press' or ask for remand?

I filed a revision of ACJM's order dismissing my 156(3).

Ld. Sessions judge was writing the order in my favour when suddenly he questioned if we have complied with 154(3) of CrPC.

Now, we did comply but, as the section asks - "Written and by post" to the SP, we went to the SP's office and got the application stamped as recvd.

Sessions judge was not satisfied and said that he could not proceed against the ACJM's order because of this technicality.

Now, we requeted him to not dismiss but give us some time to send the application to SP by post and also come back with a citation or two to support our contention that 'by post' is not mandatory.

Now my question is:

Do we have any citation on this? I could not find one.

Secondly, I have sent the post to SP and taken receipt which I will file on the next date.
Should I then bot press and go back to ACJM and ask him to revive 156 (3) and take another look along with Session's observations that his earlier order was not sustainable? (BTW his earlier order did not mention anything about 154 (3) compliance.)

OR should I get the case remanded to ACJM and ask Sessions to remand with observations and directions and ask the ACJM to decide again on merits. Is this possible? Coz 156 (3) in my knowledge cannot be redone once rejected. And even if ACJM has to reconsider under Session's order, wouldn't he ask us to wait for SP now?

And if we do wait for SP and he does not do anything, can we come in 156 (3) again?

This has become way to complex (For me). Can seniors plleaseeeeeeee give a little time and help?

THANKS A TON!!!


Learning

 5 Replies

Divya Vijayan   22 April 2022

The apex court passed the order while upholding an appeal filed by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, challenging the concurrent orders passed by the District Judge and the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The two lower courts had earlier dismissed the Trust`s appeal challenging a civil court`s decision to auction the Trust property towards realisation of money for paying compensation to certain owners whose land were acquired by it in 1992.

A bench of Justices Deepak Verma and K S Radhakrishnan said in its order that "It is the duty of the court to see to it that justice should be done between the parties. It is pertinent to point out that unless malafides are writ large on the conduct of the party, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it out on mere technalities."

Dr J C Vashista (Advocate)     23 April 2022

Factually you have stated to have complied with the provisions of Section 154(3) as you have mentioned,

"...we did comply but, as the section asks - "Written and by post" to the SP, we went to the SP's office and got the application stamped as recvd. Sessions judge was not satisfied and said that he could not proceed against the ACJM's order because of this technicality."

Section 154(3) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as,

"(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence."

What is the doubt / query of Sessions Court ?

Adv.Asgher Mahdi (Advocate)     23 April 2022

Rightly said

Raghav Arora   23 April 2022

Vashishtha Sir, the Sessions Judge says that : It had to go by post as per the bare act. However, we had persoanlly taken the application to the SSP's office and we got it recvd there in the office. That is how it is mostly done here. 

But the judge was adament that it must be done by Regd post only. 

 

 

Originally posted by : Dr J C Vashista

Factually you have stated to have complied with the provisions of Section 154(3) as you have mentioned,"...we did comply but, as the section asks - "Written and by post" to the SP, we went to the SP's office and got the application stamped as recvd. Sessions judge was not satisfied and said that he could not proceed against the ACJM's order because of this technicality."Section 154(3) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as,"(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence."What is the doubt / query of Sessions Court ?

 

Dr J C Vashista (Advocate)     24 April 2022

Move to High court under Article 227 read with Section 482 Cr PC against the order passed by Sessions Court  


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads



Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query