Section 4 Cr.P.C
- Section 4 of the CrPC provides that all offences under the IPC shall be investigated, inquired, and tried according to the provisions of the CrPC. Section 4(2) structures the application of the CrPC in situations where a special procedure is prescribed under any special enactment [See State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 299; Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3 SCC 440] Section 4 is extracted below:
Section 4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws. – (1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained.
(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.
- Section 4(2) lays down that the provisions of the CrPC shall apply to all offences under any other law apart from the IPC. However, the application of the CrPC will be excluded only where a special law prescribes special procedures to deal with the investigation, inquiry, or the trial of the special offence. For instance, in Mirza Iqbal Hussain v. State of Uttar Pradesh – (1982) 3 SCC 516] this Court was called upon to determine whether the trial court had jurisdiction to pass an order of confiscation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. This Court held that the provisions of the CrPC would apply in full force because the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 did not provide for confiscation or prescribed any mode by which an order of confiscation could be made. Therefore, it was held that a court trying an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was empowered to pass an order of confiscation in view of Section 452 of the CrPC. In determining whether a special procedure will override the general procedure laid down under the CrPC, the courts have to ascertain whether the special law excludes, either specifically or by necessary implication, the application of the provisions of the CrPC.
-
The CrPC provides the method for conducting investigation, inquiry, and trial with the ultimate objective of determining the guilt of the accused in terms of the substantive law. The criminal proceedings kick in when the information of the commission of an offence is provided to the police or the magistrate. Section 154 of the CrPC details the procedure for recording the first information in relation to the commission of a cognizable offence. It provides that any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station shall be reduced into writing by them or under their direction. The information provided by the informant is known as the FIR [T T Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181].
-
In Lalita Kumari v. Government of U P – (2014) 2 SCC 1 a Constitution Bench of this Court held that the main object of an FIR from the point of the view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity to take suitable steps to trace and punish the guilty. The criminal proceedings are initiated in the interests of the public to apprehend and punish the guilty [Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 288] It is a well settled principle of law that absent a specific bar or exception contained in a statutory provision, the criminal law can be set into motion by any individual [Ratanlal v. Prahlad Jat, (2017) 9 SCC 340]
-
In A R Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak [(1984) 2 SCC 500] a Constitution Bench of this Court held that the concept of locus standi of the complainant is not recognized in the criminal jurisprudence, except in situations where the statute creating an offence provides for the eligibility of the complainant. The Court observed that the right to initiate criminal proceedings cannot be whittled down because punishing an offender is in the interests of the society:
“…..”
Party
Dhanraj N Asawani vs Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi and Others – Crl. A No: 2093/2023 – July 25, 2023 – 3 Judges Bench.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/1632/1632_2022_1_6_45454_Judgement_25-Jul-2023.pdf
