Section 156(3) Cr.P.C: It is erroneous if Magistrates direct the police to conduct preliminary enquiry and register the fir
Prayer-Magistrate has adopted wrong procedure by directing the police to register the FIR if cognizable offence is made out-Procedure to approach Judicial Magistrate for petition under section 156(3) Cr.P.C-As per Lalitha Kumar constitutional bench Station House Officer is duty bound to register FIR if cognizable offence is found out in the information-Application of Judicial mind is necessary-Magistrate erred in directing the police to conduct enquiry and register fir if cognizable offence is found out-Magistrate’s order was recalled-Direction to magistrate to submit report.
POCSO COMPROMISE QUASH: Power under section 482 Cr. P.C could not be used to quash heinous offences based on compromise which has a serious impact on society
The judgment regarding the opening of an FIR involves a teacher who allegedly misbehaved with a child in the XI grade by patting her cheeks and touching her upper body. The Honorable High Court quashed the FIR after noting that the matter had been compromised with the child’s father. The appellants, who are third parties to the proceedings and reside in the same district as the accused, challenged the quashing of the FIR, arguing that it has societal implications. Their locus standi was challenged because they were not parties to the original case. Two key questions arose from the proceedings and the Apex court answered as follows: 1. The amicus curiae argued that if the State did not pursue the matter, a public-spirited individual should have locus standi in the interest of justice, as offenses under the POCSO Act are harmful to society. Additionally, there is a procedure to convert a petition filed under Article 32 into a Special Leave Petition. A private party can file a petition under Article 136 if an acquittal results in a serious miscarriage of justice. 2. The compromise was accepted without considering the nature and gravity of the offense, and the Station House Officer (SHO) was directed to submit a closure report. The Apex Court found that the Honorable High Court failed to give proper consideration to the principles outlined in Gian Singh’s case. Guidelines for quashing were issued, stating that the power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. should not be used to quash serious offenses based solely on a compromise, as this could have a significant impact on society. Finally, the appeal was allowed.
S. 303(2) BNS: Anticipatory Bail was filed for a bailable offence however the Hon’ble High Court quashed the FIR
The petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail for the offence under section 303(2) of the BNS., 2023 regarding the theft of tyres valued at Rs. 3,000. It is the admitted prosecution case that the value of the stolen property is less than Rs. 5,000. Since the value of the stolen property is Rs. 3,000, this is classified as a non-cognizable offence. Therefore, the police should have registered the FIR only after obtaining the appropriate order from the Magistrate. The petition for anticipatory bail is not maintainable since the offence is bailable. Hon’ble Madras High Court has quashed the FIR.
Under section 195 Cr.P.C Hon’ble High Court can commence criminal proceeding
Appeal against the quashing of order taking cognizance and further direction to take action under section 195 Cr.P.C-An Australian national was caught at the airport for having possession of packets of contraband in his underwear-Judicial Magistrate released accused personal belongings on his application-Underwear was returned to sessions court and marked as an exhibit during trial-Sessions court convicted but though Hon’ble High Court acquitted him based on the practical test conducted before it and further directed to inquire into the matter-Based on a report the Hon’ble High Court directed the sheristadar to lodge FIR before police-Charge sheet was filed against court clerk and advocate for conspiring together with intention to cause the disappearance of evidence-Quash preferred against taking cognizance due to the bar under section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C-Quash allowed with further directions to take appropriate measures under section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C-Appeal against the order of the Hon’ble High Court-Reasoning of the court below-Issues for consideration-Discussion and analysis-Rulings regarding locus standi of permitting third parties in appeal in criminal proceedings-Locus standi explained-Since the case quashed by the High Court involves serious allegations the locus standi of the appellant does not come in way-Section 195 Cr.P.C-Principles to prosecute under section 195 Cr.P.C-Cognizance was quashed based on section 195 Cr.P.C-The criminal proceedings arise based on Hon’ble High Court direction and not from private individual-High Court can exercise jurisdiction under section 195(1) Cr.P.C-Quashing the criminal proceedings was unwarranted-Case is restored.
How to mark confession explained: If inadmissible portions of confession are allowed in deposition, there is a significant risk that the trial courts may be influenced by it
Appeal against the conviction rendered by Sessions court was confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court-Allegation was accused persons abducted the deceased and there after the torso with other body parts of deceases was recovered from a canal-Consideration-Evidence of eyewitness (PW-26) describing the incident as if how the deceased was abducted by seven to eight boys-Importance of dock identification and ascribing the accused roles about the incident-Since P.W.-26 material part of testimony is full of omissions her testimony is kept out of consideration-Since another eye-witness was not examined an adverse inference will have to be drawn against the prosecution-Circumstantial evidence-PW-1 informed in cross that he has no personal knowledge about the contents of CD-Expert witness admitted that CD contains images is prone to editing and further prosecution did not produce certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act-The courts did not see the CCTV footage but relied upon it-CCTV footage is one of the circumstance and was not proved-The body parts recovery was not done at the instance of the accused-Reliance on inadmissible evidence-Hon’ble Supreme Court extracted the confession portion extracted in the deposition (testimony)-I.O attempted to prove the confession made to him which has a complete prohibition on proving such confession-If inadmissible portions in confession allowed in the deposition there is every possibility that the trial courts may get influenced by it-The gravity of the offence-The courts can convict the accused based on legally admissible evidence and there cannot be a moral conviction-Conclusion and operative part: Appellant acquitted.
