TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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 Explores Legal Nuances of Magistrate's Investigation Powers Under Criminal Procedure Code Section 156(3)</h1> <h3>Shamim Khan Versus Debashish Chakrabarty & Ors.</h3> SC examined whether a Magistrate ordering investigation under CrPC Section 156(3) is considered to be taking cognizance. Despite initial observations ... Taking of cognizance by the magistrate - whether, while directing an investigation in terms of provisions under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the Magistrate is applying his mind? - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in Manju Surana vs. Sunil Arora & Ors. [2018 (3) TMI 1434 - SUPREME COURT]. Scanning of the provisions under Sections 156(3), 173(2), 190, 200, 202, 203 and 204 of the CrPC would, prima facie, reveal that while directing for an investigation and forwarding the complaint therefor, the Magistrate is not actually taking cognizance. The judgment in Manju Surana would reveal that the matters were referred to larger Bench on 27.3.2018. Considering the fact that question involved is a matter of relevance and such issues arises frequently for consideration before Courts, it is opined that an earlier decision on the question referred is solicited. Registry is directed to place these matters before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. Summary:The Supreme Court, through Hon'ble Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, addressed a question previously referred to a larger Bench in Manju Surana vs. Sunil Arora & Ors. (2018) 5 SCC 557. The issue is whether a Magistrate, when directing an investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, is 'applying his mind' and thereby 'taking cognizance at that stage.' The Court observed that a prima facie reading of Sections 156(3), 173(2), 190, 200, 202, 203, and 204 CrPC suggests that the Magistrate does not actually take cognizance while ordering investigation and forwarding the complaint. However, respecting judicial discipline and the prior referral, the Court refrained from deciding and ordered the present matter to be tagged with the already referred cases. The Court emphasized the urgency of an early decision on this frequently arising question and directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.
TaxTMI 
