Skip to main content

Order for investigation U/S 156(3) CrPC must reach Police station forthwith

Calcutta High Court has directed Judicial Magistrates of the State to ensure that order for investigation U/S 156(3) CrPC reaches concerned Police stations forthwith, without delay, to avoid inordinate in starting police investigation. Justices Sankar Acharyya and Aniruddha Bose made this observation while dismissing acriminal appeal filed by a person convicted for rape. The bench observed “At the very outset we feel it necessary for administration of criminal justice system in the State and to prevent abuse of process of Courts by exercise of our power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the CrPC. to point out an irregularity which is apparent in this case. It comes to our notice that the petition of complaint was lodged by PW 1 in Court on 4.11.2006 which was forwarded to O.C. of police station for treating it as FIR under Section (3), CrPC. but it was received at police station on 11.12.2006 which is after one month and one week of lodging the complaint. It is true that no arguments was advanced on this point from either side at the time of hearing this appeal. In our opinion if such practice is not prohibited now the criminal justice system in the State may be seriously affected. Delay will be caused in starting police investigation and vital evidence may disappear by lapse of time which will cause obstruction in unfolding the truth. Since there is no time limit in Section 156 (3),CrPC. for communicating the order for investigation to the officer-in-charge of a police station the inordinate delay caused in this case is called as irregular instead of illegal. Such irregularity is curable and requires to be cured in general by judicial pronouncement in the interest of justice. Therefore, we are inclined to give direction upon all the judicial Magistrates of the State for their remaining vigilant so that in each case where a petition of complaint is treated as FIR passing order for police investigation under Section 156 (3), CrPC. must reach at the concerned police station forthwith.”

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/calcutta-hc-directs-magistrates-ensure-order-investigation-us-1563-must-reach-police-station-forthwith/
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen
21 comments
Read more

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le
1 comment
Read more

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a
10 comments
Read more