TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe for Police Negligence</h1> <h3>Ramesh Kumari Versus State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court held that the police's failure to register a case following the Appellant's complaint violated the mandatory provision of Section 154 of ... - Issues:Non-registration of a case by the police following a complaint, alternative remedy available to the appellant, mandatory nature of Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, dismissal of petition by High Court, pending contempt petition, direction for CBI investigation.Analysis:The appeal challenges the order of the Delhi High Court regarding the non-registration of a case by the police after a complaint was filed by the Appellant. The High Court declined to direct the registration of a case based on the complaint, citing the pending Contempt Petition and the availability of an alternative remedy, without specifying the latter. The Appellant's grievance was that despite filing a complaint of a cognizable offense, no case was registered by the police. The High Court's decision was based on the belief that the Appellant had other avenues for relief. However, the Supreme Court found fault with this reasoning, emphasizing that the genuineness of the information is not a prerequisite for registering a case under Section 154(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.The Supreme Court referenced the case law to establish the mandatory nature of Section 154, highlighting that once information disclosing a cognizable offense is presented, the police officer must register a case without assessing the credibility of the information. The Court clarified that the officer's duty is to register the case based on the information provided. In this case, the failure to register a case following the Appellant's complaint was a violation of this mandatory provision. The Court reiterated that the genuineness of the information is not a condition precedent for registration.Given the circumstances, the Supreme Court directed the CBI to register a case and investigate the complaint filed by the Appellant in 1997. Acknowledging the pending Contempt Petition, the Court stressed the need for its expedited disposal. The decision to involve the CBI was based on the nature of the allegations against the police personnel, emphasizing the importance of an independent investigation. The Court mandated the CBI to complete the investigation within three months and clarified that this direction did not imply any judgment on the case's merits or cast doubt on any party involved.In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment addressed the failure of the police to register a case, the mandatory nature of Section 154, and the need for an independent investigation by the CBI in cases involving allegations against police personnel. The Court emphasized the urgency of addressing the pending Contempt Petition and provided clear directives for the CBI's involvement and the timely completion of the investigation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
