So you want to file an FIR? Here’s how

Judging a police complaint can be a harrowing experience, especially if you are not wellversed with the letter of law. Who is a complainant? What is a complaint? What are the rights and legal safeguards available to a complainant? How do you ensure that your aggressor is brought to book? These are some of the questions most people have. Complaint & FIR
In criminal jurisprudence, it is a complaint that sets the criminal proceedings in motion. As per Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a complaint can be given either orally or in writing against someone, known or unknown.
If you are a person aggrieved by a neighbourhood development or a not-sotrivial scuffle involving many persons, it is not necessary that you name and identify everyone in your complaint. You identify as many persons as possible and put the rest in the ‘others’ bracket. It is for the police to pick up leads from your complaint and other evidence, and track down the aggressors.
Though police in Tamil Nadu give you what is called a Community Service Register (CSR) number before registering an FIR, neither the CrPC or IPC or the Police Standing Orders has any such provision. The number could at best be an acknowledgement of receipt of the complaint.
So, a literate complainant would press for registration of an FIR under Section 154, incorporating his version of the incident. Though an FIR need not be an encyclopaedia containing every detail, the complainant must ensure that key portions of his complaint have found a place in the FIR. You are entitled to a copy of the FIR under Section 154 (2) of the Code “free of cost.”
Refusal to
register FIR

What if the police refuse to accept the complaint and register FIR?

S e c - t i o n 1 5 4 ( 3 ) cl e a rly s t at e s that if an official in charge of the police station refuses to receive the complaint, then you are entitled to send “substance of the information” to the Commissioner of Police or the jurisdiction Superintendent of Police “in writing, by post.” You can also approach the jurisdictional judicial/metropolitan magistrate for an appropriate direction, under Section 156(3), asking the police to register an FIR and investigate.
There is a provision to invoke the inherent provision of the High Court directly under Section 482, and obtain a direction to the police to register an FIR and investigate.
Direction petitions for fair probe
Section 482 could be invoked to ensure that investigation was fair and impartial. If a complainant is not satisfied with the manner in which the local police handles the matter, he can ask the court to either direct the police to probe and file a final report (chargesheet) under Section 173 of CrPC, or transfer the investigation agency itself.
In umpteen cases, the court has directed the local police to hand over cases to either the CB-CID or the CBI. It can also direct the police to complete the probe and file chargesheet within a time frame. At times, courts even specificy names or designations of officials who should either conduct or monitor the progress of the investigation.
As a complainant, you have the locus standi to oppose the grant of anticipatory bail or bail to the accused. Both at the bail stage and at the trial stage, a complainant enjoys the privilege of becoming an intervenor to assist the court.
(You can’t be wronged if you know your rights. This weekly column will give you a lowdown on your rights)


So you want to file an FIR? Here’s how
Read more

FIR: A Critical Analysis of S.154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

FIR: A Critical Analysis of S.154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Table of Contents

Table of Cases…………………………………………………………………………….2

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….2

Research Methodology……………………………………………………………………5

Chapter I…………………………………………………………………………………..7

Distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable cases……………………………7

Investigation…………………………………………………………………………….8

The First Information Report…………………………………………………………..8

Object of recording the FIR……………………..……………………………………11

Chapter II…………………………………………………………………………..……13

Evidentiary Value of a usual FIR…………………………………………………….13

The Anonymous FIR…………………………………………………………………15

Implications of an Anonymous FIR…………………………………………………..17

The Situation in Real Life…………………………………………………………….18

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………..19

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………..20



Table of Cases
q Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar, (2002) 9 SCC 147.

q Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (1997) 1 SCC 283.

q Dharma Rama Bhagare v. The State of Maharashtra, (1973) 1 SCC 537.

q H.N. Rishibud v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196.

q Harkirat Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 SCC (Cri) 1068.

q Mani v. State of Kerala, 1987 Cri LJ 1965 (Ker).

q Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188.

q Ram Chander v. State of Haryana, (1981) 3 SCC 191.

q Ramsinh Bavaji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, 1994 SCC (Cri) 609.

q Saroop Singh v. The State, AIR 1964 Punj 508.

q Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), 1999 SCC (Cri) 1503.

q Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat, 1975 SCC (Cri) 515.

q Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1970 SCC (Cri) 328.

Table of Statutes
q The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

q The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.



Introduction
The Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 provides for a detailed procedure when it comes to dealing with criminal matters in our country. The criminal process in our country is divided into many phases. One such phase is the pre-trial stage. This is the stage where the role of the police is important. They investigate into any crime and collect evidence that is crucial to prosecute the accused. Without proper evidence, the court will not convict the accused. In a criminal trial, the facts lie scattered all over the record and are not readily available in one single document. They have to be therefore collected from a multitude of papers. The earliest version of the prosecution case is available in the First Information Report which is the trigger point of action.[i]

This paper focuses on the aspect of investigation. Though details are provided in next chapter, S.154 is the starting point of the investigation process in a cognizable case. There is usually a lot of controversy in determining when the actual investigation started as the Code of Criminal Procedure affords a certain protection to the accused.

Through this paper, the researcher wishes to examine a few concepts related with the report under S.154, which in popular parlance is called the First Information Report. S.154(1) of the new Code is an exact reproduction of the old code with the exception that two new provisions, namely, S.154(2) and 154(3) have been added.[ii]

The researcher, without wasting time of the reader, would now like to move to the core issues dealt with in this chapter.



Research Methodology
Aims and Objectives

The aim of this research paper is to acquaint the reader with what the First Information Report exactly is. The researcher has examined S.154 and a few allied provisions. He has focused on an important question as to whether an anonymous piece of information can constitute a FIR.

Chapterisation

This paper is divided into two chapters with sub-divisions therein to simply the reader’s efforts in understanding this paper.

Chapter I deals with the basics of an FIR without going into too much detail. Enough information has been provided so that the reader can understand the contents of the rest of the paper.

Chapter II deals with what the evidentiary value of the FIR is and whether it can be anonymous.

Research Questions

ü What is an FIR?

ü Is an FIR required in all types of cases?

ü If no, then why has there such a distinction been made?

ü What is the object of recording the FIR?

ü What is the evidentiary value of the FIR?

ü Can an FIR be anonymous?

ü What are the PROS and CONS of an anonymous FIR?

ü What is the situation in real life as regards whole concept of an anonymous FIR?

Method of Analysis

Descriptive: The researcher has made an attempt to look into the concept of the FIR with special emphasis on whether an FIR can be anonymous or not. To gain more knowledge on the subject he has interacted with Mr. Gangaiah, who is the Inspector and Station House Officer (SHO) of the Chandra Layout Police Station.


Analytical: The researcher has tried to closely study the interplay between the evidentiary value of the FIR and whether it can be anonymous or not.


Scope and Limitations

This paper tries to elucidate the concept of the FIR with special emphasis on whether an FIR can be anonymous or not. The researcher has not looked at many other issues pertaining to the FIR, eg. – delay in filing FIR, etc. Any errors or omissions that have inadvertently crept into this paper is solely the responsibility of the researcher.

Mode of Citation

A uniform mode of citation has been used through out this project.



Chapter I
Cognizable Cases, Investigation, and the Role of the Police:

The Importance of the First Information Report

At the very outset, it becomes imperative to discuss the meaning and scope of certain terms that are inextricably associated with so called ‘legal jargon’. The researcher feels that this is important as it would enable the reader to appreciate the contents of this paper and help understand the conclusions arrived at.

Distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable cases:

A non-cognizable case is one under which a police officer can arrest a person only with a warrant.[iii] Cases falling under this category are usually petty offences or those of a less serious character.

A cognizable case is one under which a police officer can arrest a person without a warrant.[iv] These types of cases are usually those of a serious nature. Hence, the police are vested with powers to arrest a person accused of such an offence without a warrant, and in doing so, a procedural safeguard that is given to a person is done away with. The possible rationale behind the removal of such a safeguard could be the fact that the police are expected to act quickly in such cases and put the accused behind bars immediately.

A very important distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable cases is the procedure for the commencement of investigation. In the former an FIR is essential whereas for the latter, the permission of a Magistrate is a must.[v] The FIR shall be discussed in detail elsewhere in this chapter. But for the moment it is necessary to note the significant difference as to how investigation commences in both the type of cases.

The First Schedule of the CrPC specifies what offences are cognizable and those which are non-cognizable.

Investigation:



The term ‘investigation’ has been used many times above. But one may wonder as to what exactly comes within the meaning of this term. This term has been defined in S.2(h) of the CrPC and includes all the activities carried out by a police officer or any other officer authorised by a magistrate that are associated with the collection of evidence.

The Supreme Court has had the opportunity to consider what are the activities that constitute an investigation.[vi] The Court said that an investigation consists of:

Proceeding to the spot;
Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case;
Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender;
Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence (this includes examination of witnesses and search and seizure);
Formation of an opinion as to whether material collected is enough to place accused on trial; and
Submission of Charge-Sheet under section 173 of the CrPC.
Therefore, it can be said that the process of investigation begins with the recording of the FIR and culminates with the filing of the charge-sheet.

The First Information Report:

As has been discussed above, there is a distinction between how an investigation commences in a cognizable case and a non-cognizable case. In simple terms, the First Information Report (FIR) is the basis on which an investigation begins in a cognizable case. The object of lodging the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance inn which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used, as also the name of the eye-witnesses.[vii]

Chapter 12 of the CrPC deals with the power of the police to carry out investigation. The first provision appearing under this chapter is S.154. This is the material provision that we are concerned with. S.154 deals with information given to the police in cognizable cases and is divided into three distinct parts. It is on the basis of this initial information given to the police that investigation commences. This initial information is more commonly known as the FIR. It is very important to note that S.154 itself does not make use of the term ‘First Information Report’. However, one should not immediately come to the conclusion that this term has not been mentioned anywhere in the code. A couple of authors have stated that the term ‘First Information Report’ has not been used in the CrPC.[viii] The researcher differs from the view shared by these authors. Though S.154 does not make use of this term, one should read S.207(ii) of the CrPC. The conclusion that can be drawn by reading this section is that the report recorded under S.154 is the First Information Report. The FIR is a very important document and marks the beginning of the investigation. The object of the FIR is to set the criminal law machinery into motion.



Now, let us concentrate on the three distinct parts of S.154. The first part which corresponds to sub-section(1) of S.154 deals with the procedure involved in recording an FIR. An important component of this provision is that the information should be given to an officer in charge of a police station. S.2 (o) of the CrPC defines who an officer in charge of a police station is. The officer in charge should reduce the information so given into writing. The informant should also sign the FIR. If he does not then he can be punished under S.180 of the Indian Penal Code which provides for punishment if a person refuses to sign a document.

The second part which corresponds to sub-section(2) of S.154 mentions that a copy of the FIR should be given to the informant. The third part corresponds to sub-section(3) of S.154 which contains the procedure to be followed in case the officer in charge of a police station refuses to record the FIR.

Once, the FIR is recorded Sections 156 and 157 of the CrPC come into play. S.157 lays down the procedure for investigation. The police officer has to send a report to the appropriate Magistrate and take necessary steps for carrying out investigation. The Proviso to S.157(1) lays down a few exceptions from the procedure prescribed under S.157(1) but the officer in charge of the police station should record reasons for doing do as is laid down under S.157(2). If the officer in charge of the police station is desirous of going ahead with the investigation he can do so. S.156 gives the power to investigate cognizable cases without order of the Magistrate. S.156(2) is crucial as it empowers the police to carry out investigation in any area without the investigation being called into question.As has been authoritatively laid down by the Supreme Court, the Station House Officer has statutory authority under S.156 of the CrPC to investigate any cognizable offence for which an FIR is lodged.[ix] The commission of a cognizable offence can be reported at any police station, irrespective of whether it has jurisdiction over the place where the alleged offence was committed.[x] Once the investigation is over, the officer may forward the report to the appropriate magistrate. The logic being that at the time of investigation it might not be known where the offence has been committed. The researcher completely agrees with this line of reasoning.

The FIR must clearly show the commission of a cognizable offence. This is one of the prerequisites for a FIR. The researcher would like to elucidate this with the help of two illustrations.

Illustration 1:

X is the officer in charge of the police station. A comes to the police station and tells X that there is a lot of commotion in a certain market place. The officer enters this information into the Station House Diary. Based on this information given by A, the officer goes to the market place and finds out that a person has been killed. He questions an eye-witness and records his statement under S.154 of the CrPC. A question arises as to whether the information given by A should be treated as the FIR as it was the first in point of time. The question one should consider is whether the information so given discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If the answer is yes, then the information does constitute the FIR or else it is not. In the instant fact situation, the information does not show the commission of any cognizable offence at all. All that was said was that there was a commotion in the market place and nothing else. A mere commotion in the market place is not a cognizable offence.

Illustration 2:

X is the officer in charge of the police station. A comes to the police station and tells X that B, a friend of A, was stabbed to death by M at the residence of B. The police records this information in the Station House Diary. The SHO goes to the residence of B and verifies the information given by A. X finds the information to be substantially correct. In such a situation, the information given by A to X would constitute the FIR as it clearly shows the commission of a cognizable offence.

Illustration 1 is quite similar to the facts of the case in Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab.[xi] In that case however, there was a telephone call made to the police station stating that firing had taken place in a taxi stand. The Supreme Court held that this would not constitute the FIR as it was cryptic and anonymous and did not show the commission of a cognizable offence. The information must unmistakably relate to the commission of a cognizable offence. A cryptic piece of information received which does not disclose any authentic knowledge about the commission of a cognizable offence would not be sufficient to register an FIR.[xii]

Object of recording the FIR:



One may be compelled to ask at this stage why there is so much emphasis or attention given to the FIR, so long as the police act upon it. Determining when the FIR was actually recorded, according to the researcher, is of significant importance. Firstly, it signifies the beginning of the investigation stage and secondly, and more importantly, S.162 of the CrPC comes into play. S.162 is a protection afforded to the accused. No information obtained by the police during investigation, if reduced to writing, can be used as evidence in any trial. This is a protective mechanism that has been incorporated to benefit the accused.

The accused in a trial always tries to show that the information first received by the police is the FIR. Since the FIR marks the beginning of the investigation, the accused resorts to S.162 to prevent the admissibility of any statement recorded by the police subsequently. Invariably, this is the most common ground raised by the accused when the accused challenges the contents of the FIR. This causes the police to act with caution when they receive any information as to the possible commission of a cognizable offence. They go the scene of crime, ascertain more facts, find a suitable eye-witness and record his statement as the FIR. This approach of the police is not accused friendly, but indeed one may put forth convincing arguments for and against the adoption of such a method adopted by the police. Thus, determining as to what piece of information constitutes the FIR is in itself an extremely important task and has a significant bearing on the very trial itself.


Illustration:



X, the SHO, on the information received through a telephone call, goes to the scene of the crime and gathers certain information. He records the statement of B, an eyewitness, as the FIR. At the trial, M, the accused might raise the plea that the telephone call will constitute the FIR (provided it had clearly shown the commission of a cognizable offence) and the statement of B is therefore barred under S.162 as it was made to a police officer during the course of investigation.

Chapter II
The Anonymous FIR and its Evidentiary Value

The FIR is usually lodged by a person who is identifiable; i.e.- the FIR bears the name and signature of the informant. The issue the researcher seeks to examine in this chapter is whether an FIR can be anonymous and would be its evidentiary value. The researcher was not able to come across a single Supreme Court ruling that allows for the recording of an anonymous FIR.

Evidentiary Value of a usual FIR:

One may ask as to what other purpose does the FIR serve other than marking the beginning of the investigation stage. Can an FIR be used to convict the accused? Logically speaking it should not form the sole basis of the conviction of the accused because the FIR only allows for the police to begin investigating. The evidentiary value of the FIR is far greater than that of any other statement recorded by the police during the course of investigation.[xiii]

An FIR is admissible as evidence in a trial. But how does the prosecution benefit by producing the FIR as evidence? Or does it actually benefit the accused by allowing him an opportunity to cross-examine the maker of the FIR. The prosecution has to always show that the FIR was properly recorded so as to show the credibility of their case and to prevent the Court from drawing an adverse inference. The accused on the other hand tries to cross-examine the maker of the FIR and tries to show some contradiction in the version of the maker in the FIR and that before Court. He tries to cast a doubt on the correctness of the FIR.

The evidentiary value of the FIR has been discussed by the Supreme Court in many a times. It is not necessary to discuss all of them in this paper. However, the researcher would like to make a reference to a few such decisions. In 1973, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had discussed the evidentiary value of an FIR.[xiv] In this case, the contents of the FIR were at variance with the testimony of other witnesses in Court. The submission of the appellant before the Supreme Court was that because of this the prosecution evidence must be considered unreliable and hence, cannot form a safe basis for holding the appellant guilty. The Court said that:



“The FIR is never treated as a substantive piece of evidence. It can only be used to contradict or corroborate its maker when he appears in Court as a witness.”[xv] (emphasis supplied)

The Court further held that an FIR cannot be used for contradicting or discrediting other witnesses who do not have any desire to spare the real culprit. An important conclusion can be arrived at if one reads the judgment of the Court in this case which is that even if the maker of the FIR contradicts himself, the prosecution case still stands and the testimony of other witnesses can be relied upon to convict the accused.

In another case that arose before the Supreme Court, the counsel for the respondents urged that the contents of the FIR could be used to corroborate the testimony of other eye-witnesses.[xvi] They intended to do so by invoking S.11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). However, the Court rejected their argument and said that the contents of the FIR can be used only to contradict or corroborate the maker of the FIR and of nobody else.

As recent as 2002, a division bench of the Supreme Court has held that the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker under S.161 of the IEA or to contradict him under S.145 of that Act. It cannot be used as against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes an accused nor to corroborate or contradict other witnesses.[xvii]



To summarise the preceding paragraphs, it can be said that the FIR can only be used to corroborate or contradict the maker of the FIR. If the maker of the FIR happens to be the accused himself, then his conduct of lodging the FIR becomes relevant under S.8 of the IEA. However the contents of the FIR cannot be used against him.

The Anonymous FIR:

An anonymous FIR necessarily implies that the FIR is made by some person whom the SHO does not know and cannot see. An anonymous FIR can be made over the telephone, via telegram, via SMS or via the Internet. Before actually putting forward his own views, the researcher would like to discuss case law. However, all these cases invariably deal with telephone calls.

An interesting case came up before the Punjab High Court in 1964.[xviii] In the instant case, the police had received an anonymous telephone call, which conveyed that the deceased had been injured by two persons and had run away. Based on this the police went to the scene of crime and recorded the statement of an eye-witness as the FIR. The accused/appellant sought to show that the telephone call constituted the FIR and hence, the statement of the eye-witness was barred by S.162 of the CrPC. The High Court cited many High Court decisions and said that a telephonic message cannot constitute an FIR. It further said that the identity of the assailants was not disclosed and was therefore cryptic. The Court said that the statement of the eye-witness would be the FIR.

The researcher would like to differ from the view expressed by the court in the abovementioned case. He feels that an FIR need not necessarily name the assailants as that is the very purpose for which the investigation takes place. If the informant is expected to mention everything in his information then what is the whole purpose of investigation. Secondly, if the telephone call does show the commission of a cognizable offence, as in the above fact situation, then why should it not be treated as the FIR? The researcher feels that is should be treated as the FIR because but for the telephone call, the police would not have proceeded to the scene of crime.

The abovementioned case was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in the Tapinder Singh Case.[xix] It is not necessary to go into the facts of this case as they have already been discussed in the previous chapter. What is relevant for the present discussion is that the court said that telephone call to the police station was cryptic and anonymous. It was cryptic because it did not show the commission of a cognizable offence. Would that mean then that if a telephone call were anonymous but not cryptic, it would then constitute an FIR. The Court somehow overlooked this point or did not find it necessary to comment on this aspect.

Once again in 1975, when one of the questions before the Supreme Court in a case was whether the telephone call of the P.S.I. would constitute the FIR or not, the Court just said that since it was too cryptic, it would not constitute the FIR.[xx] However, in that case the telephone call was not anonymous and therefore the Court might have been justified in expressing its view on that point.

However, the Supreme Court did answer this point in 1994.[xxi] It said that if a telephone call is cryptic it would not constitute the FIR. Because the purpose of such a telephone call is to ask the police to proceed to the crime scene and ascertain a few more facts before recording the FIR. But interestingly, the Court went a step ahead and said that if the telephone call shows the commission of a cognizable and based on that information the police officer proceeds to the crime scene, any statement made by a witness subsequently to him would be struck by S.162 of the CrPC. Therefore, by implication, the Court has held that the telephone call constitutes an FIR.

However, the researcher feels that a particular judgment of the Kerala High Court in 1987, even if given a narrow interpretation, would allow anonymous telephone calls to be considered as an FIR, provided it shows the commission of a cognizable offence.[xxii] The Court said:

“A First Information Report which sets the process of law in motion can come from any quarters, even anonymous sources”.[xxiii] (emphasis supplied)



Consequently, the researcher opines that an anonymous telegram, telephone call or e-mail would constitute an FIR if it clearly shows the commission of a cognizable offence. The researcher would now like to move on to the implications that might arise out of an anonymous telephone call.

Implications of an Anonymous FIR:

Let us assume an anonymous telephone call has been recorded as the FIR by the police. This has its own implications on the police as well as the accused. The police might be put at a disadvantageous position. The telephone call might have disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence but the police can never be sure that the event has happened. Once they go to the crime scene, they find a few further facts from eye-witnesses but they cannot produce the statements of such witnesses before the Court as their statement will be barred by S.162 of the CrPC. This will prove beneficial to the accused. Another disadvantage is that the contents of the telephone call when written down by the police cannot be read over back again to the informant. The police would not be able to verify the contents of the FIR that it has recorded. This would happen in cases where the informant makes a call to the police but disconnects before the information recorded is read over to him. But to overcome this, the police can have a recording device that tapes the whole telephone call.

But allowing anonymous phone calls to constitute an FIR will also prove beneficial to the police. Sometimes, according to Mr. Gangaiah (SHO, Chandra Layout Police Station), people do not wish to lodge a complaint with the police. In such cases, the FIR is lodged by the police. Usually, the Court does not much importance to an FIR recorded by the police themselves. Therefore, by recognizing an anonymous FIR, people who are afraid of criminals can still give information to the police without any fear whatsoever as their identity is not revealed.

An anonymous FIR might also be a disadvantage to the accused in a trial. When an FIR is anonymous, it is implied that the maker will not testify in Court. Consequently, the accused looses his very valuable right of cross-examination against the maker of the FIR. However, after Dharma Rama Bhagare’s case, even if the maker contradicts himself, the prosecution might still succeed if they have other reliable evidence. So, it may be said that the accused is not put to a big hardship except for the fact that he looses his very valuable right to cross-examine the maker of the FIR. He can still cross-examine the other witnesses.

In another case before the Supreme Court, where the informant had died after lodging the FIR, the Court said that since such a person cannot come to court to testify, he cannot be contradicted or corroborated. Therefore reliance cannot be placed on the FIR. However, if there is other reliable evidence or there are other witnesses, the court might still convict the accused.[xxiv]

The Situation in Real Life:

Mr. Gangaiah said that the situation in real life is much difference. He said that they never record an anonymous FIR. If they do get an anonymous call, he said that the officer in charge records the information and signs it, and thereby becomes the informant himself. Or sometimes they proceed to the crime scene and record the information of an eye-witness as the FIR. He said that this is the regular practice, even if the telephone call does show the commission of a cognizable offence.



Conclusion
The FIR is an important document as it allows the police to commence investigation in a cognizable case and also establishes the period from which the provisions of S.162 of the CrPC come into play.

The Court usually tries to see whether there existed an FIR based on which the police began investigation. Any irregularity in the trial does not vitiate the trail by itself, but the Court does draw an adverse inference from it.

Coming to the issue of allowing anonymous FIR’s, the researcher feels that a couple of the decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court settle this matter conclusively. An anonymous FIR can definitely be allowed. If the call shows the commission of a cognizable offence and the police begin investigation, then the telephone call will definitely be the FIR.

However, in reality, the police do not like to record an anonymous call due to reasons mentioned in the paper. Moreover, the police themselves are aware of S.162 of the CrPC and thereby like to record a statement, complete in facts, as the FIR.

The only thing that the researcher would like to add is that if the police were to begin recording information from an anonymous source as the FIR, then the accused would definitely be at an advantage as that would mean the operation of S.162 of the CrPC would come into play that much earlier. This is inspite of the fact that he looses the right to cross-examine the maker of the FIR.



Bibliography
Books:

q Dhirendra Pal Varshini, How to Frame a Charge under the Penal Code and Other Criminal Acts, 2nd Edn., Eastern Book Co., Lucknow, 1994.

q N.D. Basu, The Code of Criminal Procedure, S.K. Bose Ed., Vol.1, 9th Edn., Ashoka Law House, New Delhi, 2001.

q P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Code of Criminal Procedure, Justice J.K. Mathur Ed., Vol.2, 7th Edn., Modern Publishers (India), Lucknow, 2000.

q R. Nagaratnam, Criminal Procedure: Principles and Precedents, Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, 1990.

q R.V. Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure, K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai Ed., 4th Edn., Eastern Book Co., Lucknow, 2001.

q Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s The Code of Criminal Procedure, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud Ed., 15th Edn., Wadhwa and Co., Nagpur, 1997.

[i] Dhirendra Pal Varshini, How to Frame a Charge under the Penal Code and Other Criminal Acts, 2nd Edn., Eastern Book Co., Lucknow, 1994, p.2.
[ii] N.D. Basu, The Code of Criminal Procedure, S.K. Bose Ed., Vol.1, 9th Edn., Ashoka Law House, New Delhi, 2001, p.742.

[iii] See Section 2(l) of the CrPC for the meaning of the term non-cognizable cases or non-cognizable offences.

[iv] See Section 2(c) of the CrPC for the meaning of the term cognizable cases or cognizable offences.

[v] See Section 155 of the CrPC to know about how an investigation commences in a non-cognizable case.

[vi] H.N. Rishibud v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196.

[vii] Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188.

[viii] P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Code of Criminal Procedure, Justice J.K. Mathur Ed., Vol.2, 7th Edn., Modern Publishers (India), Lucknow, 2000, p.1350, and, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s The Code of Criminal Procedure, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud Ed., 15th Edn., Wadhwa and Co., Nagpur, 1997, p.209.

[ix] Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), 1999 SCC (Cri) 1503.

[x] R. Nagaratnam, Criminal Procedure: Principles and Precedents, Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, 1990, p.22.

[xi] 1970 SCC (Cri) 328.

[xii] Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (1997) 1 SCC 283.

[xiii] R.V. Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure, K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai Ed., 4th Edn., Eastern Book Co., Lucknow, 2001, p.119.

[xiv] Dharma Rama Bhagare v. The State of Maharashtra, (1973) 1 SCC 537.

[xv] Ibid., at Para.7.

[xvi] Ram Chander v. State of Haryana, (1981) 3 SCC 191.

[xvii] Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar, (2002) 9 SCC 147.

[xviii] Saroop Singh v. The State, AIR 1964 Punj 508.

[xix] Supra, note 11.

[xx] Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat, 1975 SCC (Cri) 515.

[xxi] Ramsinh Bavaji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, 1994 SCC (Cri) 609.

[xxii] Mani v. State of Kerala, 1987 Cri LJ 1965 (Ker).

[xxiii] Ibid., at Para.4.

[xxiv] Harkirat Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 SCC (Cri) 1068.

Source: http://legalsutra.org/

FIR: A Critical Analysis of S.154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Read more

The Power Of The Magistrate Under Section 156 (3) Of Cr.P.C

The Power Of The Magistrate Under Section 156 (3) Of Cr.P.C


The information under section 154 of Cr.P.C is generally known as F.I.R. It is pertinent to see that the word '' first'' is not used in Cr.P.C in section 154 of Cr.P.C. Yet, it is popularly known as FIRST INFORMATION REPORT. Nevertheless a person,who is a grievance that police officer is not registering FIR under section 154 of Cr.P.C, such a person can approach Superintendent of Police (SP), with written application, under sub-section 3 of section 154 of Cr.P.C. In case of SP also does not still register FIR, or despite FIR is registered, no proper investigation is done, in such a case, the aggrieved person can approach Magistrate concerned under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. If that be so, it is very essential and interest to know the powers conferred on Magistrate under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I deem that it is very useful if it is discussed with relevant case law as to the powers of Magistrate under section of 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.
Section 156(3) is very briefly worded. The powers of Magistrate are not expressly mentioned in section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. If that be so, a paucity will be crept mind that whether there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and /or to direct the officer in charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same or not.
That too, an aggrieved person has right to claim that the offence he alleges be investigated properly. However, The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in CBI & another vs. Rajesh Gandhi and another 1997 Cr.L.J 63 (vide para 8) that no one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency.
THE CLASSIFICATION OF MAGISTRATES:
Before discussing the powers of Magistrate under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C, it is necessary to understand the categories of Magistrates in our country. The classification of Magistrates is given in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. It stipulates that in each sessions district, there shall be
Executive Magistrates
Judicial Magistrate of Second Class
Judicial Magistrate of First Class; and
The Chief Judicial Magistrate
Inasmuch as section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C says that '' Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned''., we must understand section 190 of Cr.P.C.
Let us see the relevant case law in order to know the power of Magistrate under section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code,1973.
- It has been held by The Hon'ble Apex Court in CBI & another vs. Rajesh Gandhi and another 1997 Cr.L.J 63 (vide para 8) that ''no one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency''. This view was agreed in Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others .
- In Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others, it was further held that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.
Thus in Mohd. Yousuf vs. Smt. Afaq Jahan & Anr. JT 2006(1) SC 10, this Court observed:
The clear position therefore is that any judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so. After all registration of an FIR involves only the process of entering the substance of the information relating to the commission of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in charge of the police station as indicated in Section 154 of the Code. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many words while directing investigating under Section 156(3) of the Code that an FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complaint because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter.µ.
- The same view was taken by this Court in Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi JT1 (vide para 17).
It was also observed in Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others that even if an FIR has been registered and even if the police has made the investigation, or is actually making the investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such a person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper investigation and take other suitable steps and pass such order orders as he thinks necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. All these powers a Magistrate enjoys under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
- Section 156 (3) states:
Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned.µ
The words `as above mentioned obviously refer to Section 156 (1), which contemplates investigation by the officer in charge of the Police Station.
- Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same.
The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 156(3) is an independent power, and does not affect the power of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after submission of his report vide Section 173(8). Hence the Magistrate can order re-opening of the investigation even after the police submits the final report, vide State of Bihar vs. A.C. Saldanna2.
- It was further held that ''Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation''.- It was further held that '' It is well-settled that when a power is given to an authority to do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary to its execution''.
- It was further held that '' The reason for the rule (doctrine of implied power) is quite apparent. Many matters of minor details are omitted from legislation. As Crawford observes in his Statutory Construction (3rd edn. page 267):-
If these details could not be inserted by implication, the drafting of legislation would be an indeterminable process and the legislative intent would likely be defeated by a most insignificant omission µ. In ascertaining a necessary implication, the Court simply determines the legislative will and makes it effective. What is necessarily implied is as much part of the statute as if it were specifically written therein''.
- In Savitri vs. Govind Singh Rawat3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the power conferred on the Magistrate under Section 125Cr.P.C. to grant maintenance to the wife implies the power to grant interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceeding, otherwise she may starve during this period.
- The Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the doctrine of implied powers are Union of India vs. Paras Laminates AIR 1991 SC 696, Reserve Bank of India vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd AIR 1996 SC 646 (at p. 656), Chief Executive Officer & Vice Chairman Gujarat Maritime Board vs. Haji Daud Haji Harun Abu 1996 (11) SCC 23, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, AIR 1996 SC 3527, State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabharati House Building Co-op Society 2003 (2) SCC 412 (at p. 432); Savitri vs. Govind Singh Rawat, and ITO, Cannanore vs. M.K. Mohammad Kunhi, AIR 1969 SC 430, etc. On observing the above rulings, in Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although Section 156(3) is very briefly worded, there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and /or to direct the officer in charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same. Even though these powers have not been expressly mentioned in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. And it was held that they are implied in the above provision.
-In Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others, it was further held that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. And further held that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3).
- it was further that ''If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?''
- And also held that '' the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.''
- In Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another 2003 (6) SCC 195 (vide para 13), it has been observed by The Hon'ble Apex Court that a Magistrate cannot interfere with the investigation by the police. However, in our opinion, the ratio of this decision would only apply when a proper investigation is being done by the police. If the Magistrate on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is satisfied that proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station, he can certainly direct the officer in charge of the police station to make a proper investigation and can further monitor the same (though he should not himself investigate).
- It may be further mentioned that in view of Section 36 Cr.P.C. if a person is aggrieved that a proper investigation has not been made by the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station, such aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police or other police officer superior in rank to the officer-in-charge of the police station and such superior officer can, if he so wishes, do the investigation vide CBI vs. State of Rajasthan and another 2001 (3) SCC 333 (vide para 11), R.P. Kapur vs. S.P. Singh AIR 1961 SC 1117 etc. Also, the State Government is competent to direct the Inspector General, Vigilance to take over the investigation of a cognizable offence registered at a police station vide State of Bihar vs. A.C. Saldanna .
- In CBI vs. State of Rajasthan and another 2001 (3) SCC 333, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that '' the Magistrate cannot order investigation by the CBI''.
- In Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others , it was held that there was an investigation by the G.R.P., Mathura and also two Courts of Inquiry held by the Army authorities and they found that it was a case of suicide. Hence, in our opinion, the High Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for a CBI inquiry.
In Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services U.P. and others vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and another 2002 (5) SCC 521 (vide para 6) , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that although the High Court has power to order a CBI inquiry, that power should only be exercised if the High Court after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such material discloses prima facie a case calling for investigation by the CBI or by any other similar agency. A CBI inquiry cannot be ordered as a matter of routine or merely because the party makes some allegation.
-Nareshbhai Manibhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat And Ors4 ,In this ruling, it was held that under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., a Magistrate cannot direct C.B.I. to conduct an enquiry. A Court white exercising revisional powers put itself into the position of the Court passing the impugned order and then examines the question and revises the order if need be. Therefore, while exercising revisional powers this Court would not be competent to order an investigation through C.B.I. or C.I.D., as is prayed for by the revisioner.
K. Vijaya Laxmi vs K. Laxminarayana And Ors5. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra pradesh held as '' It is, however, unfortunate to note that the learned Magistrate proceeded under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. in this case and then on filing of the charge-sheet by the police, took cognizance of the offence on the basis of such police report, ignoring the provisions under Section 198, Cr.P.C. Section 198 of Cr.P.C. contemplates that if the offence is under Section 494, I.P.C., then the Magistrate is prohibited from taking cognizance of such offence, except on a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. In this case, the person aggrieved by the offence committed by accused 1 and 2 is the wife of the accused No. 1 i.e., the de facto complainant. The offence could have been taken cognizance on the complaint filed by the de facto complainant or on the complaint filed by some one on her behalf as contemplated under Section 198(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. In the light of this provision, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of the charge-sheet filed by the police. This may have grave consequences. I had half a mind to set the clock back and to quash the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate and direct him to proceed from the stage of the complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and other relevant provisions under Cr.P.C. But I am not inclined to do so considering the fact that the complaint was lodged as far back as in the year 1989. At this stage rolling back the proceedings would amount to causing great hardship to the accused, who would be required to go through the ordeal of almost a fresh trial after almost eleven years''.
-The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh observed that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Chand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., I (2001) CCR 54 (SC) : 2001 (1) Crimes 171 (SC), in which it is held that in a private complaint the Magistrate has power to direct police for investigation under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. before taking cognizance of the offence. The Magistrate can also order police to register the First Information Report and conduct investigation and in such case the Magistrate is not bound to examine the complainant.
-In Polavarapu Jagadiswararao v. Kondapaturi Venkateswarlu6, wherein it is held as follows :-
"As noted supra, on receipt of a complaint under S. 200, Cr.P.C., the Magistrate shall record the sworn statements of the complainant and the witnesses, if any, present and (i) may take cognizance of the offence under S. 190(1)(a) and issue process, or (ii) postpone the issue of process under S. 202 and (a) inquire into the case himself or (b) direct investigation by police. Thus, the discretion under S. 202, Cr.P.C., lies with the Magistrate either to inquire into the case himself or direct investigation by the police. It is also open to the Magistrate to issue or postpone issue of process. While exercising his discretion, the Magistrate scrutinises the complaint, the sworn statement of the complainant and also of those recorded from the witnesses, if any, and then arrives at a decision as to whether to take cognizance of the offence under S. 190(1)(a) or to postpone issue of process under S. 202, Cr.P.C. or to refer the case to the police under S. 156(3), Cr.P.C. for investigation. It is only in case of deciding that the material is not sufficient to take cognizance of the offence he may refer the matter to the police under S. 156(3) for purposes of investigation. Therefore, when once the Magistrate after scrutinising the complaint, the sworn statements and other material comes to the conclusion that he can take cognizance of the offence, there is no need to have a resort to S. 156(3)."
-The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in D. Lakshaminarayana v. V. Narayana7, after comparing the relevant provisions of the 1898 Code and the 1973 Code, it was held as follows (at page 1365; of Cri LJ) :-
"It is well settled that when a Magistrate receives a complaint, he is not bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint, disclose the commission of an offence. This is clear from the use of the words 'may take cognizance' which in the context in which they occur cannot be equated with 'must take cognizance'. The word 'may' gives a discretion to the Magistrate in the matter. If on a reading of the complaint he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under S. 156(3) will be conclusive to justice and save the valuable time to the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence, himself.
This raises the incidental question : What is meant by 'taking cognizance of an offence' by the Magistrate within the contemplation of Section 190 ? This expression has not been defined in the Code. But from the scheme of the Code, the content and marginal heading of Section 190 and the caption of Chapter XIV under which Sections 190 to 199 occur, it is clear that a case can be said to be instituted in a Court only when the Court takes cognizance of the offence alleged therein. The ways in which such cognizance can be taken are set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 190(1). Whether the magistrate has or has not taken cognizance of the offence will depend on the circumstances of the particular case including the mode in which the case is sought to be instituted, and the nature of the preliminary action, if any, taken by the Magistrate. Broadly speaking, when on receiving a complaint, the Magistrate applies his mind for the purposes of proceeding under section 200 and the succeeding sections in Chapter XV of the Code of 1973 he is said to have taken cognizance of the offence within the meaning of Section 190(1)(a). If, instead of proceeding under Chapter XV, he, has in the judicial exercise of his discretion, taken action of some other kind, such as issuing a search warrant for the purpose of investigation, or ordering investigation by the police under section 156(3), he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence.
The position under the Code of 1898 with regard to the power of a Magistrate having jurisdiction to send a complaint disclosing a cognizance offence - whether or not triable exclusively by the Court of Session - to the Police for investigation under section 156(3), remains unchanged under the Code of 1973. The distinction between a police investigation ordered under section 156(3) and the one directed under section 202, has also been maintained under the new Code; but a rider has been clamped by the 1st Proviso to Section 202(1) that if it appears to the Magistrate that an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session has been committed, he shall not make any direction for investigation.
Section 156(3) occurs in Chapter XII, under the caption : 'Information to the Police and their powers to investigation'; while Section 202 is in Chapter XV which bears the heading 'Of complaints to Magistrate'. The power to order police investigation under S. 156(3) is different from the power to direct investigation conferred by Section 202(1). The two operate in distinct spheres at different stages. The first is exercisable at the precognizance stage, the second at the post-cognizance stage when the Magistrate is in seisin of the case. That is to say in the case of a complaint regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, the power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the offence under S. 190(1)(a). But if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon the procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he is not competent to switch back to the pre-cognizance stage and avail of Section 156(3). It may be noted further that an order made under sub-section (3) of Section 156, is in the nature of a peremptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise their plenary powers of investigation under Section 156(1). Such an investigation embraces the entire continuous process which begins with the collection of evidence under Section 156 and ends with a report or chargesheet under section 173. On the other hand, Section 202 comes in at a stage when some evidence has been collected by the Magistrate in proceedings under Chapter XV, but the same is deemed insufficient to take a decision as to the next step in the prescribed procedure. In such a situation, the Magistrate is empowered under section 202 to direct, within the limits circumscribed by that section, an investigation 'for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.' Thus the object of an investigation under section 202 is not to initiate a fresh case on police report but to assist the Magistrate in completing proceedings already instituted upon a complaint before him."
Other Relevant case law as to Section 156(3) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1. Smt. Masuman W/O Sri Faiz Mohd. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 25 September, 2006 (Allahabad High Court)
2. Pawan Sharma And Anr. vs Smt. Kamalabai And Anr.8 on 10 April, 2007 (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
3. Harshadbhai C. Patel vs Indravadan P. Shah And Anr9. on 25 November, 1985 (Gujarat High Court)
4. Rajaram Venkatesh and Ors. vs The State of Andhra Pradesh10 and Ors... on 21 September, 1992 (Andhra High Court)
5. Chandan Son Of Aanganu vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Manoj ... on 17 October, 2006 (Allahabad High Court)
6. Mr. Jitendra Chandrakant Mehta vs Shamrock Impex Pvt. Ltd.11 ... on 3 May, 2006 (Mumbai High Court)
7. Annie Jyothis vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2008 (Kerala High Court)
8.Kamlesh Pathak And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr12.
9. T.Gopalakrishna Pillai, Sree ... vs The District Superintendent Of ... on 11 June, 2008
10.Annamma Alex, Aged 45 Years vs The Ci Of Police, Piravom on 16 July, 2008
11.A.J. Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2008
12. State Of Kerala ... vs Mariyu, W/O.Muhammed Fazil ... on 4 September, 2008
13. K.Venugopalan Nair vs State of Kerala And Ors on 19 August, 200
I hope that this article is useful to the judicial officers, lawyers, law students and others who seek information as to this matter.
1 2007 (10) SC 585
2 AIR 1980 SC 326 (para 19)
3 AIR1986 SC 984
4 (2003) 1 GLR 456
5 2000 (2) ALD Cri 184
6 1991 Cri LJ 1419
7It was observed in '' Rajaram Venkatesh And Ors. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors'' (1993 (1) ALT Cri 106, 1993 78 CompCas 28 AP)
8 2007 CriLJ 3539
9 (1986) 1 GLR 643
10 1993 (1) ALT Cri 106
11 2006 CriLJ 3131
12 II (2005) DMC 348

Total shows: 4277
Author: Y. Srinivasa Rao, M.A (English); B.Ed; B.L; LL.M (Previous). I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari Dist, India.
Rating: 4.74


The Power Of The Magistrate Under Section 156 (3) Of Cr.P.C
Read more

Knowledge Bible. Com

Knowledge Bible. Com

A very useful forum for CA & CS students and of course for lawyers practicing in Taxation Law
Read more

Business Law Notes #2 : Meetings & Resolutions « Ritu’s Weblog

Business Law Notes #2 : Meetings & Resolutions « Ritu’s Weblog

Excellent blog by Ms. Ritu Khabia. Impressive articles about Business Law and Company Law. Useful for Law students and Lawyers as well.
Read more

Important Website Links for Lawyers

Indian Courts

http://www.indiancourts.nic.in/

http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/

http://highcourtchd.gov.in/

http://hcraj.nic.in/

http://phc.gov.in/

http://orissahighcourt.nic.in/

http://mphighcourt.nic.in/

http://www.hcmadras.tn.nic.in/

http://highcourtofkerala.nic.in/

http://164.100.80.145:8080/dspace/

http://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/

http://jharkhandhighcourt.nic.in/

http://jkhighcourt.nic.in/

http://hphighcourt.nic.in/

http://gujarathighcourt.nic.in/

http://ghconline.nic.in/

http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/

http://highcourt.cg.gov.in/

http://calcuttahighcourt.nic.in/

http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/

http://allahabadhighcourt.in/

http://hc.ap.nic.in/

http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/

http://courtnic.nic.in/

http://lobis.nic.in/

Law Reviews/ Journals

http://www.nlsir.in/

http://www.ijlt.in/

http://www.nalsar.ac.in/IJIPL/

http://www.ijle.org/

‘http://www.nalsarstudentlawreview.com

http://epw.in/

http://www.sociolegalreview.in/

http://www.nujslawreview.org/

http://www.indlaw.com/ijcl/

http://companylawjournal.com/

Electronic Database

http://papers.ssrn.com/

http://www.springerlink.com/

http://www.jstor.org/

Law Schools

http://www.nls.ac.in/

http://www.nalsar.ac.in/

http://www.nliu.com/

http://www.rmlnlu.ac.in/

http://www.gnlu.ac.in/

Legal Blogs

http://indiancorporatelaws.blogspot.com/

http://www.legalblog.in/

http://balkin.blogspot.com/

http://www.loweringthebar.net/

http://nanopolitan.blogspot.com/

http://winnowed.blogspot.com/

http://www.swapan55.com/

http://prsindia.org/theprsblog/

http://swblogs.blogspot.com/

http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/

http://www.lexmonitor.com/

http://mnkkannan.blogspot.com/

http://accountabilityindia.blogspot.com/

http://communalism.blogspot.com/

http://pilsarc.blogspot.com/

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Legalairs/

http://iltb.apargupta.com/

http://indialawyers.wordpress.com/

http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.com/

http://indiacorplaw.blogspot.com/

http://lsolum.typepad.com/

http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/

http://indialawyers.wordpress.com/

http://legaldevelopments.blogspot.com/

Document/Judgment Repositories

http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/

www.openbooklive.com

http://www.iprlawindia.org/

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/

Judgments and Legislations

www.indiankanoon.org/

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/judgments/

http://judis.openarchive.in/

http://www.judis.nic.in/

http://www.commonlii.org/in/

http://www.indlii.org/

http://www.salestaxcases.com/

http://india.gov.in/govt/acts.php

http://india.gov.in/govt/constitutions_india.php

http://www.indlaw.com/

Legal News and Information

www.pib.nic.in/

http://rainmaker.co.in/

http://www.editorialjunction.com/

www.legallyindia.com

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/

http://www.barandbench.com/

Laws

www.vakilNo1.com

www.indiankanoon.org/

http://indiacode.nic.in/

http://www.lawsofindia.org/

http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/

http://www.prsindia.org/

Periodicals

http://www.ebc-india.com/practicallawyer

http://www.indiatogether.org/

Legislative Bodies and Legislations

http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/

http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/

http://164.100.47.132/

http://loksabha.nic.in/

http://rajyasabha.nic.in/

http://www.prsindia.org/

Central Ministries / Departments / Bodies

http://india.gov.in/

http://envfor.nic.in/

http://lawmin.nic.in/

http://coal.nic.in/

http://indiabudget.nic.in/

http://www.mca.gov.in/

http://finmin.nic.in/

http://dipp.nic.in/

http://policies.gov.in/

http://msme.gov.in/

http://mib.gov.in/

http://education.nic.in/

http://mhupa.gov.in/

http://mha.gov.in/

http://mohfw.nic.in/

http://mofpi.nic.in/

http://meaindia.nic.in/

http://moef.nic.in/

http://moes.gov.in/

http://mdoner.gov.in/

http://mod.nic.in/

http://civilaviation.nic.in/

http://indiaculture.gov.in/

http://labour.nic.in/

http://powermin.nic.in/

http://persmin.nic.in/

http://mpa.nic.in/

http://mines.nic.in/

http://fcamin.nic.in/

http://cabsec.gov.in/

http://www.commcentrestate.gov.in/

http://yas.nic.in/

http://wcd.nic.in/

http://wrmin.nic.in/

http://urbanindia.nic.in/

http://tribal.gov.in/

http://tourism.gov.in/

http://texmin.nic.in/

http://steel.nic.in/

http://mospi.gov.in/

http://socialjustice.nic.in/

http://shipping.gov.in/

http://rural.nic.in/

http://morth.nic.in/

http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/

http://petroleum.nic.in/

http://moia.gov.in/

http://mnes.nic.in/

http://minorityaffairs.gov.in/

http://bprd.gov.in/

http://planningcommission.gov.in/

http://www.svpnpa.gov.in/

Regulatory Bodies/Commissions

http://www.indiaitlaw.com/

http://cic.gov.in/

http://rct.nic.in/

http://copyright.gov.in/

http://aptel.gov.in/

http://www.rbi.org.in/

http://www.pngrb.gov.in/

http://www.cercind.gov.in/

http://nhrc.nic.in/

http://www.irdaindia.org/

http://www.sebi.gov.in/


http://www.trai.gov.in/

http://cci.gov.in/

http://clb.nic.in/

http://cestat.gov.in/

http://tdsat.nic.in/

http://www.trai.gov.in/

http://itat.nic.in/

http://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/

www.ncdrc.nic.in/

www.patentoffice.nic.in/

Miscellaneous

http://www.tradelawdevelopment.com/

http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/handle/2009/519//browse-title

http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/

http://www.judicialreforms.org/

http://www.constitutionmaking.org/

http://legalworkshop.org/

http://www.comparativeconstitutions.org/
Read more

Title investigation of immovable property

Real Estate Laws -Part 1-Title Investigation Of Immovable Property
The word “Title” generally used in the context of property means a right in the property. It connotes bundle of rights subject to prohibitory or regulatory statute. Such rights are capable of being transferred.

In the case law reported in Supreme Court Cases ,

Can bank Financial Services Vs custodian 2004(8) SCC 266, it was held by Supreme Court that:-

“The Title in an immoveable property is the means whereby a person’s rights to property in presenti is established and does not include a bare expectancy to get such right in due course of time.”

I.e. Title means a present right or interest in an immovable property capable of being transferred.

The expression Title conveys different forms of a right to a property, which can include a right to possess such property.

Title in immovable property can be conveyed only if the transferor posses such title.

A person cannot convey any title, which he himself does not possess .This was decided by the Supreme court in case of

“Syndicate Bank V Estate officer, AIR 2007 SC 3169”

Title in a property cannot exist in two different persons having rival claim.

Marketable title to property :-

The term ’marketable title’ title means a title free from reasonable doubt.

Where there is reasonable decent probability of litigation, it would be considered as the title is doubtful.

The procedure of tracing the title :-Normally a title to an immoveable property is traced for a period of 30years or 13 years. A search is taken by an advocate of the records available in the sub-registrar office .Advocate on basis of the entries found related to the property for which the search was taken ,and also on the basis of the documents available gives his search and title clearance report.

Further a public notice in local newspapers should be given about the intention of sale as also calling for any objection before the sale is finalised.

Such notice will show the bonafide intention of the purchaser, in case any litigation arises later on, the Hon. court will consider the bonafide intention of the purchaser before passing a judgment against the purchase.

Material defect in property is different from material defect in title.

A right of way / easement may not be a defect in title of the property but would become the material defect in the property.

Disclosure of material defect in property is the duty of the seller:-The seller is duty bound to disclose to the buyer.

Material defect in the seller’s title makes the sale deed voidable.

Material defect in property if not disclosed amounts to fraudulent transfer. –Under Section 55 of the Transfer of property Act, omission on the part of the seller to make disclosure as are mentioned under section 55(1)(a) of the Act, is fraudulent. But before there is such breach it must be shown that the buyer could not with ordinary diligence, discover such defect.

It is well settled that where the buyer has the means of discovering the defect of the title, there can be no breach of section55 (1) of the Act.

The reported case laws are Dr.Gwashalal Vs Kartar Singh A.I.R 1961 ,J.K. 66and Jhamaklal v Mishrilal AIR ,1957 MB 23

Existence of mortgage makes the title incomplete. – The existence of the mortgage over the property makes the title thereto incomplete.

It is well settled that encumbrance on the property is material defect in the property.

Possessory title in the property – A possessory title under a registered agreement to sale along with “No Objection Certicate” of the seller, could be very well to the extent of furnishing the security but cannot confer full fledged title in the property.

In terms of section 12 B of the Income Tax Act, title must pass by any modes mentioned therein, namely sale exchange or transfer.

In the case of Alapati Venkataramaih Vs commissioner AIR 1966 SC 115 Supreme court held that the contention that a possessory title in terms of section53A of the Transfer of Property Act would not sub serve the requirements of an effective conveyance of the capital assets, as delivery of possession of immoveable property cannot by itself be treated as equivalent to conveyance of immovable property.

By taking proper care as above, the purchaser can get good and marketable title to any immoveable property.


Source: law4all.co.in» Blog Archive » Real Estate Laws -part 1-Title investigation of immovable property
Read more