Note: Cr.P.C , IPC Bare Law etc after; relevant Judgments are cited
- Cr.P.C: Complete Code [ Here ].
- Indian Penal Code [ Here ]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Read-Friendly Evi Act : .
. . .
- May 11, 2012. Samaj Parivartan Samudaya Vs. Karnataka CrPC.Sec. 200, to 210
Paras 17 to 26 deal extensively on “PCR, Cr PC Sec 200 to 210. Law violators must be brought to Justice & Rule of Law should be up-held. [ Read Below]
- A. R. Antulay vs Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak And Another on 16 February, 1984 Supreme Court of India: Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 718, 1984 SCR (2) 914. DATE OF JUDGMENT16/02/1984. BENCH: DESAI, D.A., PATHAK, R.S., REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J), SEN.
- 31 January, 2012: Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs Dr. Manmohan Singh
- P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka . . (2002) 4 SCC 578 ;A.R. Antulay [Read More ]
- A Means- End Approach; with Lot of Cases Discussed [ Read ]
- CrPC Sec 200 R/W Section 197; Indian Penal Code – Sections 149, 341, 342, 352, 435, 500 and 504.Pripor Permission u/s 197 Not Required; S.C. AIR1969SC686, 1969CriLJ1057, 2SCR1013. Decided On: 29.11.1968. Appellants: Prabhakar V. Sinari Vs. Respondent: Shanker Anant Verlekar [ Read More ]
- IMPORTANT CASE LAWS: T.N. State Judicial Academy
- The Power of The Magistrate Under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C
- B.A. Harish Gowda vs P. Lankesh on 11 February, 2000. . . Equivalent citations:
ILR 2000 KAR 2657, 2000 (5) KarLJ 283. Author: S Bannurmath.Bench: S Bannurmath
May 11, 2012. Samaj Parivartan Samudaya Vs. Karnataka CrPC.Sec. 200, to 210May 11, 2012: CJI. (S.H. Kapadia), J. (Aftab Alam), J. (Swatanter Kumar), New Delhi:
Paras 17 to 26 deal extensively on “PCR, Cr PC Sec 200 to 210. Law violators must be brought to Justice & Rule of Law should be up-held.
Para 22: secondly, he could file a complaint under Section 200 CrPC, whereupon the Magistrate shall follow the procedure provided under Sections200 to 203 or 204 to 210 under Chapter XV and XVI of the CrPC.
Paras 23:In a complaint case, the complainant is burdened with the onus of establishing the offence and he has to lead evidence before the Court to establish the guilt of the accused. The rule of establishing the charges beyond reasonable doubt is applicable to a complaint case as well.
Para 24. The important feature that we must notice for the purpose of the present case is that even on a complaint case, in terms of Section 202, the Magistrate can refer the complaint to investigation by the police and call for the report first, deferring the hearing of the complaint till then. Section 210 CrPC is another significant provision with regard to the powers of the Court where investigation on the same subject matter is pending. It provides that in a complaint case where any enquiry or trial is pending before the Court and in relation to same offence and investigation by the Police is in progress which is the subject matter of the enquiry or trial before the Court, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings and await the report of the investigating agency. Upon presentation of the report, both the cases on a Police report and case instituted on a complaint shall be tried as if both were instituted on a Police report and if the report relates to none of the accused in the complaint it shall proceed with the enquiry/trial which had been stayed by it. The section proceeds on the basis that a complaint case and case instituted on a police report for the commission of the same offence can proceed simultaneously and the Court would await the Police report before it proceeds with the complaint in such cases. The purpose again is to try these cases together, if they are in relation to the same offence with the intent to provide a fair and effective trial. The powers of the trial court are very wide and the legislative intent of providing a fair trial and presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is the essence of the criminal justice system.
Para: 25. The Court is vested with very wide powers in order to equip it adequately to be able to do complete justice. Where the investigating agency has submitted the charge sheet before the court of competent jurisdiction, but it has failed to bring all the culprits to book, the Court is empowered under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to proceed against other persons who are not arrayed as accused in the charge sheet itself. The Court can summon such suspected persons and try them as accused in the case, provided the Court is satisfied of involvement of such persons in commission of the crime from the record and evidence before it.
CITATION: 1984 AIR 718 1984 SCR (2) 914 . 1984 SCC (2) 500 1984 SCALE (1)239
CRUX: HELD: 1. It is a well established cannon of construction that the court should read the section as it is and cannot rewrite it to suit its convenience; nor does any cannon of construction permit the court to read the section in such manner as to render it to some extent otiose. [936D- E]
2:1. A private complaint filed in respect of the offences committed by public servants as enumerated in s. 6 (1) and (b) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 can be entertained by the special Judge and taken cognizance of. The same is perfectly legal. [936B]
State of Tamil Nadu v. V. Krishnaswami Naidu & Anr.  3 S.C.R. 928; Parasnath Pande & Anr. v. State, A.I.R. 1962 Bom 205; Jagdish Prasad Verma v. The State, A.I.R. 1966 Patna 15; referred to.
2:2. It is a well recognised principle of criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary. The Scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages two parallel and independent agencies for taking criminal offences to court. Even for the most serious offence of murder, it was not disputed that a private complaint can, not only be filed but can be entertained and proceeded with according to law. Locus Standi of the complaint is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence save and except that where the statute creating an offence provides for the eligibility of the complaint, by necessary implication the general principle gets excluded by such statutory provision. [923D-F] While s. 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits anyone to approach the Magistrate with complaint, it does not prescribe any qualification the complaint is required to fulfil to be eligible to file a complaint. But where an eligibility criterion for a complaint is contemplated specific provisions have been made such as to be found in ss. 195 & 199 of the Cr. P. C. These specific provisions clearly indicate that in the absence of any such statutory provisions, a locus standi of a complaint is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence. In other words the principle that anyone can set or put the criminal law in motion remains intact unless contraindicated by a statutory provision. [923G-H; 924A]
This general principle of nearly universal application is founded on a policy that an offence i.e. an act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force (See s. 2 (n) Cr. P. C.) is not merely an offence committed in relation to the person who suffers harm but is also an offence against society. The society for its orderly and peaceful development is interested in the punishment of the offender. Therefore, prosecution for serious offences is undertaken in the name of the state representing the people which would exclude any element of private vendatta or vengeance. If such is the public policy underlying penal statutes, who brings an act or omission made punishable by law to the notice of the authority competent to deal with it, is immaterial and irrelevant unless the statute indicates to the contrary. Punishment of the offender in the interest of the society being one of the objects behind penal statutes enacted for larger good of the society, right to initiate proceedings cannot be whittled down, circumscribed or fettered by putting it into a straight jacket formula of locus standi unknown to criminal jurisprudence, save and except specific statutory exception. To hold that such an exception exists that a private complaint for offences of corruption committed by public servant is not maintainable, the court would require an unambiguous statutory provision and a tengled web of argument for drawing a far fetched implication, cannot be a substitute for an express statutory provision. [924A-E]
It is no answer to this fairly well-established legal position that for the last 32 years no case has come to the notice of the court in which cognizance was taken by a special Judge in a private complaint for offences punishable under the 1947 Act. If something that did not happen in the past is to be the sole reliable guide so as to deny any such thing happening in the future, law would be rendered static and slowly whither away. [925C]
The Scheme underlying Code of Criminal Procedure clearly reveals that anyone who wants to give information of an offence may either approach the Magistrate or the officer in charge of a Police Station.
B.A. Harish Gowda vs P. Lankesh on 11 February, 2000. . . Equivalent citations:
ILR 2000 KAR 2657, 2000 (5) KarLJ 283. Author: S Bannurmath.Bench: S Bannurmath