Legal Reference Library

In Satish Dharmu Rathod vs The State of Maharashtra the Bombay High Court has held that a criminal investigation cannot be quashed on the ground that the investigating officer has no territorial jurisdiction. It was alleged in the petition that the police of cantonment police station, Aurangabad, had no territorial jurisdiction to investigate into the crime as no part of crime is shown committed within the territorial limits of Cantonment Police Station, Aurangabad. The alleged offence of cruelty and criminal intimidation etc. are shown to have been committed at Kandhar and Mumbai. Therefore, the FIR registered at Cantonment Police Station, Aurangabad, deserves to be quashed and set aside for lack of jurisdiction to investigate into the crime, the petition said. The high court held that sub-section (2) of Section 156 of CrPC stated that no proceeding of police officer in any stage shall, be called in question on the ground that the case was one which the officer was no...

In Deutsche Bank Ag Vs. State, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that under Section 173 (8) of  the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, insofar as the matter relating to the investigation to be conducted on a complaint, the Investigating Officer will have to carry out the investigation in all earnestness. He should neither exclude any relevant material nor should he be expected to create or fabricate material to bring to book the accused under any circumstance. It should be a fair investigation. On completion of the investigation and the report is laid before the jurisdictional Court, the learned Judge of such Court has the duty to examine the report and either accept the same or to order further or fresh investigation. In appropriate cases the learned Judge may also record evidence and proceed in terms of Section 202 of Cr PC. Further as for Investigation by another Agency under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the power to direct the investigation by another agency shou...

The Allahabad High Court, in Dr. Kuldeep Kaushik vs. State of UP, has held that a magistrate has the authority to interfere in a case investigation if it is not going on in a proper or fair manner. In the instant case, a magistrate had dismissed a surrender application filed by a doctor, accused of medical negligence, on the ground that any interference in the investigation cannot be done. In the surrender application, it was requested that various papers, along with surrender application, be sent to the Investigating Officer and after taking into consideration the papers, a report may be called for from the Investigating Officer. After the magistrate rejected the surrender application, the accused approached the High Court. Justice Abhai Kumar said: “The magistrate while passing the impugned order observed that the court cannot interfere in the investigation. The observation of the magistrate can be correct up to a certain extent, but what ‘interfere’ means is entirely dependent upon ...

Magistrates cannot ask the police to investigate a private criminal defamation complaint as it is the complainant who needs to prove the case, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said while prima facie finding fault with a lower court order asking Maharashtra cops to probe the defamation case against Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi. Gandhi, facing a defamation complaint for his remarks allegedly accusing RSS for assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, has sought its quashing from the apex court which had observed that the leader should not have resorted to "collective denunciation" of an organisation (RSS) and will have to face trial if he does not express regret. A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and RF Nariman, at the outset, referred to an earlier judgement delivered on a batch of pleas, including the one filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and Gandhi each, challenging the constitutional validity of penal defamation law and said that police cannot be asked by judicial magistrates...

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 com...

Allahabad High Court, coming down heavily on Police officers for illegally confining a lady for fifteen days, in the garb of investigation against her husband in the complaint filed by her parents accusing him of kidnapping her, has observed that practice of taking witness in custody for recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC is not contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/confinement-witnesses-purpose-investigation-crime-illegal-allahabad-hc/

State of Kerala v. P.B. Sourabhan and Ors. The State Police Chief or Director General of Police is empowered to appoint a superior officer to investigate a crime case registered outside the territorial jurisdiction of such officer. The Supreme Court disagreed with the finding of the High Court that such an exercise of powers was in excess of the powers under Section 36 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It noted that such a conclusion could not be reached on a reading of Section 36 of the CrPC as it contained no direct bar to the effect; rather "It is the satisfaction of the State Police Chief, in the light of the facts of a given case, that would be determinative of the appointment to be made in which situation the limits of jurisdiction will not act as fetter or come in the way of exercise of such jurisdiction by the superior officer so appointed."