law forum

संज्ञेय अपराधों में एफ.आई.आर. दर्ज करना अनिवार्य – सुप्रीम कोर्ट की संविधान पीठ का आदेश 
****************************************************
आज दिनाक १२ / ११/ १३ को : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने मील का पत्थर साबित होने वाले अपने एक आदेश में कहा की संज्ञेय अपराधों में एफ.आई.आर. दर्ज करना अनिवार्य है और इसके लिए प्रारंभिक जांच की इज़ाज़त भी नहीं है | यह आदेश सुप्रीम कोर्ट की पांच सदस्यीय संविधान पीठ ने दिया है | चीफ जस्टिस ...पी सथाशिवम की अध्यक्षता वाली पांच सदस्यीय खंड पीठ ने कहा कि पुलिस संज्ञेय मामलो में एफ आई आर दर्ज़ करने से मना नहीं कर सकती और ना ही ऐसे मामलो में एफ आई आर दर्ज़ करने के पहले प्राथमिक जाँच कर सकती है ....यद्यपि इस बात के लिये जाँच की जा सकती है कि मामला संज्ञेय अपराध में आता है या नहीं ..... कितु ऐसी जाँच ७ दिन के भीतर पूरी हो जानी चाहिये |
संविधान पीठ ने ऐसे मामलो में दोषी पुलिस अधिकारियों के विरुद्ध कार्यवाही की भी बात कही |

उक्त विनिश्चय एक जान हित याचिका के निपटारे में आया है ||

*****************************************************************************

हाल ही वाद विनिश्चय ,अजय कुमार परमार वि . राजस्थान राज्य (Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 406) विवेचना और विचारण के महत्वपूर्ण पक्षों को व्याख्यायित करता है ....अधोलिखित भाग विशेष है जो उचित मार्गदर्शन करते है |
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ss. 209, 190, 207, 208, 227, 228, 235, 239, 240, 248 and 343 - Offence exclusively triable by Sessions Court - Powers
and duties of Magistrate in committal proceedings - Cognizance - Circumstances for consideration of defence evidence -
Refusal of Magistrate to take cognizance and consequent discharge/acquittal of accused relying upon evidence led by accused without even committing case to Sessions Court - Sustainability - Held, scheme of CrPC, 1973, and particularly a conjoint reading of Ss. 207 to 209 CrPC makes it crystal clear that committal of a case exclusively triable by Court of Session, in a case instituted by police is mandatory - Scheme of CrPC, 1973 simply provides that Magistrate can determine whether facts stated in report (prima facie) make out offence triable exclusively by Court of Session - Once
Magistrate reaches conclusion that facts alleged in report make out offence triable exclusively by Court of Session, Magistrate must commit case to Sessions Court - Restoration of proceedings in present case, upheld - Sessions Court to which case had been committed directed to proceed expeditiously in accordance with law, (2012) 12 SCC 406-A
********************************************
Ss. 209, 207, 208, 164(1), 190(1), 173(2) and 169 - Offence exclusively triable by Sessions Court - Magistrate refusing to take cognizance of offence and acquitting accused by relying on statement of prosecutrix incorrectly recorded under S. 164 - Reversal of such discharge/acquittal by Sessions Court and High Court, and restoration of proceedings, confirmed - Sessions Court to which case had been committed directed to proceed expeditiously in accordance with law, (2012) 12
SCC 406-B
**********************************************
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ss. 190(1), 203, 204 and 173(2) - Refusal to take cognizance and dropping of proceedings against accused -
Prerequisites to be complied with - Held, when Magistrate decides to not to take cognizance of case and to drop proceedings against accused, it is mandatory to hear complainant or informant by issuing him notice, (2012) 12 SCC
406-C
************************************************
S. 164 - Recording of statements by Magistrates - Recording of statements without satisfactory identification of witness/complainant - Impermissibility of - Held, Magistrate cannot record statements under S. 164 without satisfactory identification of such person - When statements are recorded without proper identification then such statements lose their sanctity.( close )
********************************************************************************* 

 156 (3) Cr .P.C.  is not a mechanical exercise,  Magistrate should apply their mind before making order under this  section .  This view has expressed by Hon. Justice  of M.P. High court shri M.C. Garg in a bench mark order  in criminal revision  i.e. Ramesh Tiwari v/s State M. Cr. No  863/2013 .

Para 9 of the aforesaid  set a guide line regarding sec 200 and 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Which  authorized  magistrate to issue direction to officer in charge  of police station regarding registration of first information report and investigate the crime .

According to aforesaid order ,any order should be speaking  but not vogue or silent U/S  156(3) Cr.P.C. means reasons should be cite that why court consider the matter fit for F.I.R . Procedure U/S 200 regarding complainant should be complete first . Magistrate is under obligation to hear concerning  In charge officer of police station before making order in this regard .

  Registry is also directed for necessary action

*********************************************************************************

( द .प्र. स.  अंतर्गत धारा ४३७/ ४३८/४३९ )

किसी अपराध में यदि आरोपी गिरफ्तार होकर जमनत पर है और बाद में बड़े अपराध का पता चलता है या उक्त छोटा अपराध में परिवर्तित हो जाता है तो आरोपी को पुलिस बिना न्यायालय की अनुमति पुन: नये अपराध के लिये गिरफ्तार कर सकेगी और ऐसे आरोपी को सीधे न्यायलय द्वारा भी अभिरक्षा में लिया जा सकेगा |

                  उक्त आशय के विचार प्रहलाद सिंह भाटी बनाम एन.सी.टी. दिल्ली और अक्षय  ए. आई. आर. २००१ सु.को. १४४४ में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा व्यक्त किये गये |

प्रहलाद सिंह भाटी के उक्त मामले के पहले इस विषय में अनिश्चय की स्थिति थी | स्वयम म.प्र उच्च न्यायलय द्वारा राम बाबू शर्मा विरुद्ध म.प्र.शासन १९९० (१) वीकली नोट्स ७९  में  प्रतिपादित किया गया था कि ऐसे मामलो में  पुन: गिरफ्तारी केवल  धारा ४३९ (२) द.प्र. स. के अधीन होगी अन्यथा नहीं |

प्रहलाद सिह भाटी के उपर्युक्त मामले में इस सिद्दांत के विपरीत प्रस्थापना  दी गयी | इस मामले में आरोपी को पहले भा. द वी . की धारा ३०६ तथा ४९८ (अ) में जमानत का लाभ दिया गया था कालान्तर में वही अपराध धारा ३०२ भा.द. वी. में परिवर्तित हो गया | इस दशा में पूर्ववर्ती जमानत के लाभ को जारी रखने के विरुद्ध माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायलय द्वारा आपति प्रकट करते हुये इस प्रकिया को विधि विरुद्ध ठहराया |

                         मोटे तौर पर इस वाद के परिप्रेक्ष्य में आरोप परिवर्तित होने के साथ पूर्ववर्ती जमानत का कोई प्रभाव और अस्तित्व नही रह जायेगा और पश्चातवर्ती गंभीर अपराध के लिये आरोपी को पुन:  गिरफ्तार किया जा सकेगा ||

****************************************************************************************************

  dear ,prosecution officers
                                we all r now suffering from A.C.R. syndrome coz of april  which is running ..
                              Shakespeare said it cruelest month although he was not govt employee and had no risk of ACR. lol... here is link of one the most helpful ruling over such issue ...
HIGH COURT M.P. in a land mark judgement i.e
. R.P. Panthare vs state of mp 2008 M.P.H.T. {197} 
express clearly that evrey entry in ACR whether poor/ average/ good /very good must be communicated to the employ concerned ...so that he may have opportunity if being aggrieved ,of making representation against it ...
                                                            .in light of aforesaid judgement .. we can ask about comments of our ACR from higher authority. .. pls read full judgement and clear concept regarding this ..it may help in all future... gud luck 
##########################################################################
##########################################################################
DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY: PRINCIPLES TO FOLLOW 

                                                    Govt employ who do not become subject of departmental enquiry in any form e.g. witness enquiry officer or accused is very fortunate but due to fault or by bad luck any govt officer may  be subject of departmental enquiey. To consider this unexpected  situation  here we r providing a judgment  of supreme court in which apex court  

Laid down certain principle regarding departmental enquiry and right invested in accused . apex court laid down that  …A Departmental enquiry should not be mere formality .Basic principle of natural justice have to be followed. A witness or complainant cant be enquiry officer . Art. 311[2] reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of charges against him. Department   should take first step to lead evidence .against delinquent .Copy of enquiry officer’s report alongwith material relied on should be given to him  delinquent .. state of uttarnchal vs kharak singh

                      2008[8] scc 23

preventive action and procedure under cr pc 

Urgent case of public nuisance :

                 When District magistrate or Sub-divisional magistrate or any other magistrate who is specially empowered thinks that there are sufficient grounds to proceed under section 144 of CrPC, magistrate will issue written orders stating facts of the case/circumstances in the manner as :

• Order will be served on the person against whom it is.

• If order can not be served, it shall be notified by proclamation or published and copy of order shall be stuck up at fittest place.
• Magistrate can restrict any person from certain act or to take certain order for property in his possession.
• If order can not be served in due time due to emergency, order can be passed ex-parte.
• Order remain in force for a maximum period of two months. Only state government, notification, can extend duration up to six months.
• Magistrate by its own motion or on some request can alter the order.
• Magistrate can prohibit to carry arms in procession or mass drill or mass training with arms.

                  There are other sections of CrPC meant for preventive actions which are as :

Unlawful assembly :

                    Any executive magistrate or officer-in-charge of the police station or a police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector may command any assembly of five or more persons which may cause disturbance to the public peace to disperse. If assembly does not disperse, required force can be used and members of assembly can be arrested and confined as per sections 129, 130 and 131 of Cr PC.

Conditional order for removal of public nuisance : 

                      If magistrate thinks and considers that :

• Any unlawful assembly should be removed from the public place.
• Conduct of any trade or keeping of goods is injurious to health etc.
• Construction or disposal of anything should be stopped.
• Any building or structure is dangerous to life.
• Any tank or well should be fenced.
• Any dangerous animal should be destroyed or confined.

                       He may make a conditional order  requiring such person to remove the obstruction or nuisance as mentioned above as per section 133 of the CrPC.

Disputes of immovable property :

                   Whenever any executive magistrate thinks that dispute concerned with any land or water or the boundaries, in his jurisdiction, make an order stating grounds and require parties to attend the court as per section 145 of the CrPC.

                  If magistrate consider a case of emergency or is unable to decide the case may attach the subject and appoint an receiver.

                  The district magistrate or Sub-divisional-magistrate may depute a subordinate magistrate to conduct local inquiry and submit report.

What is section 107, 150 and 151 of the CrPC ? How is it implemented ?

Section 107 : When an executive magistrate receives information that any person may cause a breach of peace or may disturb public peace and thinks that there are sufficient ground to proceed, he may issue a show cause to such person to execute a bond for keeping peace for a period of maximum up to one year.

Section 150 : When a police officer receives information of a design to commit a cognizable offence shall communicate such information to his senior officer for prevention of the commission of such offence.

Section 151 : When a police officer having knowledge of a design of cognizable offence and it appears that the commission of the offence can not be prevented otherwise, he can arrest the accused without warrant.

Arrested person can not be detained in custody for a period more than 24 hours of his arrest.

What is 107/150 CrPC ?

                     Whenever a police officer receives information about the design of a crime/offence which is cognizable and immediate arrest of the accused is not necessary (u/s 150 of the CrPC), he submits his report to the executive magistrate in the jurisdiction to take action for prevention of the crime u/s 107 CrPC. Police officer submits his report u/s 107/150 CrPC.

What is 107/151 CrPC ?

                   Whenever a police officer receives information of design of a cognizable offence and and immediate arrest of the accused is necessary to prevent the commission of an offence, police officer on duty arrests the accused immediately without warrant and produces him before the executive magistrate in the jurisdiction within 24 hours of his arrest along with his report/file for the magistrate to take action u/s 107 CrPC. Police forwards such report u/s 107/151CrPC.