TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether cognizance could be taken on a police report which itself disclosed that investigation was not complete. (ii) Whether the impugned order was liable to be interfered with in revision or under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.
Issue (i): Whether cognizance could be taken on a police report which itself disclosed that investigation was not complete.
Analysis: A police report within the meaning of Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must follow completion of investigation. A report filed before completion of investigation, or one that expressly states that further investigation is continuing, is not a final report for the purpose of taking cognizance. Section 173(8) applies only after a valid report under Section 173(2) has been filed and cannot be used to justify an incomplete report as though it were complete.
Conclusion: Cognizance on the impugned report was invalid and unsustainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order was liable to be interfered with in revision or under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.
Analysis: The order taking cognizance affected the accused persons' rights and was not a purely interlocutory order. Even where the maintainability of revision is debatable, the High Court can treat the challenge as one invoking inherent jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice. The order also disclosed non-application of mind because it did not specify the accused persons or the offences for which cognizance was taken.
Conclusion: Interference was warranted and the challenge was maintainable.
Final Conclusion: The cognizance order was set aside, while the investigation was left open to continue and culminate in a valid report in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Cognizance cannot be taken on a police report filed before completion of investigation under Section 173(2), and Section 173(8) cannot cure an incomplete report; the High Court may interfere to prevent miscarriage of justice even where the order is claimed to be interlocutory.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
