Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, after ordering investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and receiving a police report stating that no case was made out, the Magistrate could still take cognizance on the basis of the original complaint and issue process notwithstanding the police conclusion.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under Chapter XII and Chapter XV of the Code permits a Magistrate, on receiving a complaint, either to take cognizance at once under Section 190(1)(a) and proceed under Sections 200, 202, 203 and 204, or first to order investigation under Section 156(3) and then act on the police report under Section 173. The police report is not controlling on the Magistrate, because cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) depends on the facts disclosed in the report and not on the police opinion. Even when the police recommend that no case is made out, the Magistrate may disagree, treat the complaint as still alive, and proceed under Section 190(1)(a) by recording the complainant's statements and deciding whether process should issue. The prior order for investigation does not efface the complaint or bar the Magistrate from adopting the complaint route thereafter.
Conclusion: The Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance and issue process on the complaint despite the adverse police report, and the challenge to that course failed.