CR.P.C. CASE LAWS

The State of Bihar vs Chandra Bhushan

Singh & Ors. AIR 2001 Supreme Court

429

Cr.P.C. S.2(d) Charge sheet by RPF officer

for offence under Railway Property Act can

be treated as complaint of the RPF

Attiq-Ur-Rehman Vs.Municipal

Corporation of Delhi and

anotherAIR1996SC1267

Cr.P.C. S.4 In absence of special court the

regular court can try the offence

Thomas DanaVs.The State of

PunjabAIR1959SC375

Cr.P.C. S.4 The words Punishment and

Penalty are explained in

Republic of Italy thr. Ambassador and

Ors.Vs.Union of India (UOI) and

Ors.2013(1)SCALE462

Cr.P.C. S.4 Union Govt was directed to

constitute special court

Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patelvs.The State of

Gujarat and Anr.AIR2001SC567

Cr.P.C. S.4(2) When the special statute does

not prescribe procedure Cr.P.C. is applicable

In Re_ Sikandarkhan Mahomedkhan

1920(22)BOMLR200

Cr.P.C. S.9 Additional Sessions Judge can

hear appeal

EmperorVs.Lakshman Chavji

NarangikarAIR1931Bom313

Cr.P.C. S.9(3) 194 and 409 Assistant and

Additional Sessions Judges exercise

jurisdiction of Sessions Court but they are

separate Courts

Praphakar Vs. The State of Maha 2012

Cri.L.J.4726

Cr.P.C. S.28 Assistant Sessions Judge should

not be allotted with case punishable with

more than 10 years

Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel vs The State Of

Gujarat AIR 2001 SC 567

Cr.P.C. S.29 and S.138 NI Act Magistrate

has no pecuniary limit for compensation

Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel vs The State Of

Gujarat AIR 2001 SC 567

Cr.P.C. S.29 Magistrate has no pecuniary

limit for compensation

Shidlingappa

GurulingappaVs.EmperorAIR1926Bom416

Cr.P.C. S.31 Aggregate fine should be

considered for the purpose of appeal

Chatar Singh vs State Of

M.P.AIR2007SC319

Cr.P.C. S.31 Aggregate sentence not to

exceed 14 years when consecutive SC says

Hariom @ Kalicharan Shiriram and anr Vs.

the State of Maharashtra 1994(2) Bom

C.R.219

Cr.P.C. S.31 and 427(1) Accused convicted

in 3 cases His sentence of 22 years brought

down by giving concurrence in two cases

Emperor vs Piru Rama Havaldar27

BOMLR 1371

Cr.P.C. S.31 and IPC S.71 separate sentences

are subject to the provisions of Section 71,

Indian Penal Code

Jagat Bahadur Singh Jagat Bahadur

SinghVs.State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR

1966 SC 945

Cr.P.C. S.31 Appellate court can inflict the

Trial Court's limited punishment only

Reg.Vs.Tukaya Bin TamanaILR1875 1

Bom 214

Cr.P.C. S.31 For S.457 and 380 IPC

Sentence may be either for both or for one

but should not greater

Sunil Anandrao Sawant vs Government Of

Maharashtra 2010CriLJ3579

Cr.P.C. S.31 Separate sentence to run

consecutive after life has been discussed

Nanak ChandVs.The State of

PunjabAIR1955SC274

Cr.P.C. S.34 AND 149 Distinction is

explained

detention D.K. Basu Vs State of West

Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610

Cr.P.C. S.41 and Constitution A.21

Directions w.r.t. arrest and

R.P. VaghelaVs.State of

Gujarat2002CriLJ3082

Cr.P.C. S.41 and Contempt of Courts Act

S.10 Mere handcuffing without prior

permission, in justifiable circumstances does

not amount to contempt

Afak Shabbir Khan vs The State Of

Maharashtra & Anr

2013BomCR(Cri)242(DB)

Cr.P.C. S.41 Mentioning reasons in the arrest

panchanama is held sufficient compliance of

recording reasons for arrest

Arnesh KumarVs.State of

BiharAIR2014SC2756

Cr.P.C. S.41(1) and 41A and S.498A of IPC

Directions to police and Magistrates

ManikandanVs.S. I. of Police, Nallalam

Police Stn2008CriLJ1338

Cr.P.C. S.41(1)(d) Accused needs to bailed

or not is discussed

Joginder KumarVs.State of U.P. and

Ors.(1994)4SCC260

Cr.P.C. S.56(1) Magistrate to ensure

compliance of directions given

Jayendragiri Anandgiri

GoswamiVs.Narcotics Control Bureau and

Anr.2005CriLJ3190

Cr.P.C. S.57 Accused in NCB custody

arrested in another crime should be produced

before magistrate within 24 hours

Gajanan P. Lasure Vs. The Director

General of Police and ors 2009(4)

Mh.L.J.399

Cr.P.C. S.57 and deemed suspension of

accused public servant

Raghuvansh Dewanchand BhasinVs.State

of Maharashtra and AnrAIR2011SC3393

Cr.P.C. S.70 and 71 No Arrest on cancelled

warrant. Warrant register be maintained

State Through Cbi vs Dawood Ibrahim

Kaskar AIR1997SC2494

Cr.P.C. S.73 Warrant can be issued before

charge sheet and for investigation purpose

Shaikh RahemanVs.State of

Maharashtra1991(1)BomCR263

Cr.P.C. S.79 Magistrate can issue warrant for

execution beyond his local jurisdiction

M.P. Sharma and Ors.Vs.Satish

ChandraAIR1954SC300

Cr.P.C. S.93 and 94 Search and Seizure from

accused not violative of fundamental rights

State of GujaratVs.Shyamlal Mohanlal

Choksi MANU-SC-0383-1964

Cr.P.C. S.94 is not applicable to accused

State of Gujarat Vs. Shyamlal Mohanlal

Choksi AIR 1965 SC 1251

Cr.P.C. S.94(1) Power to issue summons to

produce document is not applicable to

accused

Pravinsingh and anotherVs.Biharilal Singh

and another 1989 Cri LJ 1386) (Bom)

Cr.P.C. S.97 Search can be conducted in a

place other than mentioned in warrant

State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil and

Another, 2001 Cri.L.J. 504

Cr.P.C. S.100 and S.27 Evi Act Witnesses

not required

Khet SinghVsUnion of India

(UOI)AIR2002SC1450

Cr.P.C. S.100 Seizure panchanama prepared

at customs office instead of spot did not

cause prejudice Hence relied

State Of Maharashtra & Ors.Vs.Sudhir

Vasant Karnataki Etc. Etc.MANU-SCOR-

47069-2014

Cr.P.C. S.100 Whether immovable property

is included or not referred to larger bench

State Govt. of NCT of DelhiVs.Sunil and

Another2001CriLJ504

Cr.P.C. S.100(5) and Evi Act S.27 Witnesses

is not required

Bombay HC Full bench Sudhir Vasant

KarnatakiVs.The State of Maharashtra

2011 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 326 _ 2011 ALL

MR (Cri) 96

Cr.P.C. S.102(1) Property does not include

immovable property

Sunder Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

AIR1956SC411

Cr.P.C. S.103 Applicable to search of a place

and not of a person. Hence, independent

witnesses not necessary

Suresh NandaVs.C.B.I.AIR2008SC1414 Cr.P.C. S.104 Passport can be impounded by

Passport Authority and not by Police

The State of Maharashtra and

Anr.Vs.Mangali Dewaiyya

Pupalla1994MhLJ483

Cr.P.C. S.107 and 116 No provision to ask

for interim bond

Rajesh Suryabhan NayakVs.The State of

Maharashtra2006(5)MhLj243

Cr.P.C. S.107 and 123 No interim bond and

CJM reduced bond

Pramila Navin ShahVs.State of

Maharashtra &

Ors2005(15)CriminalCC1051

Cr.P.C. S.107 No provision to ask for interim

bond

Dattatraya Mahadu TikkalVs.The State of

Maharashtra2014(1)BomCR(Cri)439

Cr.P.C. S.107 Sessions Judge has to interfere

if action is illegal

Pravin Vijaykumar Taware,Vs.The Special

Executive Magistrate

2009(111)BOMLR3166

Cr.P.C. S.116 Training to Executive

Magistrates directed by High Court

Rajesh Suryabhan NayakVs.The State of

Maharashtra, 2006(5)MhLj243

Cr.P.C. S.123(2) and (3) CJM exercised

jurisdiction

Noor Saba Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Quasim

AIR 1997 SC 3280

Cr.P.C. S.125 and S.3 of MWPOD Act

Rights of mior children and unmarried

daughter are protected

Mohd. Ahmed KhanVs.Shah Bano Begum

and OrsAIR1985SC945

Cr.P.C. S.125 applicable to Muslim divorced

women also

Allabuksh Karim ShaikhVs.Smt.

Noorjahan Allabuksh Shaikh and

another1994MhLJ1376

Cr.P.C. S.125 application for muslim child is

tenable

Smt. Saroj Govind Mukkawar Vs.Smt.

Chandrakalabai Polshetwar

2009(4)MhLj665

Cr.P.C. S.125 Daughter in law was directed

to maintain mother in law

Nandlal Wasudeo BadwaikVs.Lata Nandlal

Badwaik and Anr.AIR2014SC932

Cr.P.C. S.125 DNA Test prevails over the

presumption

Bakulabai and Anr.Vs.Gangaram and

Anr.(1988)1SCC537

Cr.P.C. S.125 Illegitimate child is entitled for

maintenance

Jaiminiben Hirenbhai VyasVs.Hirenbhai

Rameshchandra VyasDecided On_

19.11.2014

Cr.P.C. S.125 Judgment shall contain reasons

for finding for grant of maintenance from the

date of application

Jagdish JugtawatVs.Manju Lata and

Ors.(2002)5SCC422

Cr.P.C. S.125 Maintenance by Family Court

to major daughter was upheld

Shivaji Baburao Bhabad @ Bhawad

Vs.Sau. Alka Shivaji Bhabad Criminal

Writ Petition No. 955 of 2009 decided on

14.01.2010

Cr.P.C. S.125 Major son is not entitled for

maintenance

Jagir SinghVs.Ranbir Singh and

Anr.AIR1979SC381

Cr.P.C. S.125 Major son though student is

not entitled for maintenance from father

Chinnappaiyan ChellandiVs.Chinnathayee

Chinnappaiyan2010(1)Crimes835

Cr.P.C. S.125 Permission granted to amend

petition

Sau. Manda R. Thaore Vs. Sh. Ramaji

Ghanshyam Thaore Criminal Revision

Application No. 317-2006Decided On_

20.04.2010

Cr.P.C. S.125 Second wifes maintenance

rejected but compensation granted in revision

Syed Mohsin Ali Syed Shaukat AliVs.Smt.

Noorus Saher MANU-MH-0996-2005

Cr.P.C. S.125 Talaq must be for reasonable

cause and be preceded by attempts at

reconciliation

Savitaben Somabhai BhatiyaVs.State of

Gujarat and Ors.AIR2005SC1809

Cr.P.C. S.125 Woman married by Hindu man

having living spouse is not entitled for

mainteance

Shantha @ Ushadevi and Anr.Vs.B.G.

ShivananjappaAIR2005SC2410

Cr.P.C. S.125(3) Successive applications are

unnecessary and Limitation is not barred

when the arrears upto date are included by

interim application

Rajesh Bhiwaji NandeVs.State of

Maharashtra and Ors.2005(2)MhLj977

Cr.P.C. S.125(3) Successive orders of one

month imprisonment upheld

Dalip SinghVs.RajbalaII(2007)DMC273 Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Adultery defence not

applicable after divorce

Dalip SinghVs.RajbalaII(2007)DMC273 Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Adultery not applicable to

divorcee

Gita Vs. Chandrasekhar Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Divorced on cruelty ground

is till entitled for maintenance

M. Chinna

KaruppasamyVs.Kanimozhi2015ALLMR(

Cri)615

Cr.P.C. S.125(4) includes adultery by

divorced wife

Chanda Preetam WadateVs.Preetam

Ganpatrao Wadate 2002(2)MhLj482

Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Isolated instance of adultery

is not sufficient to deny maintenance

Vanamala (Smt)Vs.H.M. Ranganatha

Bhatta(1995)5SCC299

Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Wife does not include

divorcee

Ashok Yeshwant SamantVs.Smt. Suparna

Ashok Samant and another1991CriLJ766

Cr.P.C. S.127(1) Precondition to deposit

arrears cannot be put

Ahmed Noormohmed BhattiVs.State of

Gujarat and Ors.AIR2005SC2115

Cr.P.C. S.151 is not ultravires merely

because it can be misused

Rajesh Ramrao Raut Vs. The State of

Maharashtra and Ors. 2003 Cri.L.J

Cr.P.C. S.151(3)_

Anju ChaudharyVs.State of U.P. and

Anr.2013CriLJ776

Cr.P.C. S.154 and 156(3) If the offence is

same there cannot be two FIRs. Magistrate

can treat application as a complaint

Satvinder Kaur Vs.State (Govt. of N.C.T.

of Delhi)AIR1999SC3596

Cr.P.C. S.154 and 177 The IO can forward

the FIR to the police station having

jurisdiction if the offence was beyond own

jurisdictiono

UshabenVs.Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada

and Ors.2012ACR1859

Cr.P.C. S.154 and 198A Police can

investigate S.494 with 498A of IPC as

S.498A is cognizable

GaneshaVs.Sharanappa and

anr.AIR2014SC1198

Cr.P.C. S.154 and 354 The person who

lodges the FIR be called the Informant and

not the Complainant

M. Narayandas vs State Of Karnataka And

Ors.,2004 Cri.L.J. 822,

Cr.P.C. S.154 FIR reasonableness or

Credibility of the said information is not a

condition precedent for registration of a case

BabubhaiVs.State of Gujarat and

Ors.(2010)12SCC254

Cr.P.C. S.154 For deciding tenability of two

FIRs sameness test should be applied

Ashi Devi and Ors.Vs.State (NCT of

Delhi)MANU-SC-0526-2014

Cr.P.C. S.154 In a 9 years old theft case held

that mere delay itself is not a ground to

discard a case

Gosu Jayarami Reddy Vs. State of A.P.

(2011) 11 SCC 766

Cr.P.C. S.154 Overwriting limited to

converting 4 to 5 in FIR is immaterial.

GaneshaVs.Sharanappa and

anr.2014(11)SCALE541

Cr.P.C. S.154 Person who lodges FIR is

called Informant and who files complaint is

called complainant

Mrs. Charu Kishor Mehta and etc.Vs.State

of Maharashtra and Anr.2011CriLJ1486

Cr.P.C. S.154 Police cannot refuse to register

the F.I.R. under the pretext of preliminary

inquiry when cognizable offences are made

out

KumariVs.Govt. of U.P. and

Ors.2014CriLJ470

Cr.P.C. S.154 Police is bound to register

F.I.R. Lalita

Satish Narayan SawantVs.State of

Goa2009CriLJ4655

Cr.P.C. S.154 police officer going to the

place of occurrence to make some survey

does not amount to making an investigation

doc.

Mrs. Charu Kishor MehtaVs.State of

Maharashtra and Addl. Commissioner of

PoliceDecided On_ 00.11.2010

Cr.P.C. S.154 Police shall register FIR

instead of ignoring as civil dispute

Sone Lal And Ors AIR 1978 SC 1142 Cr.P.C. S.154 Recording FIR is an official

act and has such presumption

Charu Kishor Mehta and etc. etc.Vs.State

of Maharashtra and Anr.2011CriLJ1486

Cr.P.C. S.154 Reliability genuineness and

credibility of the information are not the

conditions precedent Mrs.

Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and Ors. vs.

State of Karnataka and Ors

Cr.P.C. S.154

M. Narayandas vs State Of Karnataka And

Ors.,2004 Cri.L.J. 822

Cr.P.C. S.154 Sections 195 and 340 do not

come in the way of investigation by police.

On the basis of such investigation the Court

can file a complaint

Surender Kaushik and Ors.Vs.State of

Uttar Pradesh and Ors.AIR2013SC3614

Cr.P.C. S.154 There cannot be two FIRs of

the same person of same incident

Surender Kaushik and Ors.Vs.State of

Uttar Pradesh and Ors.AIR2013SC3614

Cr.P.C. S.154 When a FIR is already there

sameness test shall be used for the

subsequent FIRs

State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan

Lal And Ors1992 AIR 604

Cr.P.C. S.154 When can the Court pass

appropriate orders

Satish Narayan SawantVs.State of

Goa2009CriLJ4655

Cr.P.C. S.154 When information was cryptic

the police officer going to the place of

occurrence to make some survey is not an

investigation

Pravin Chandra ModyVs.State of Andhra

PradeshAIR1965SC1185

Cr.P.C. S.155 Police can investigate a non-

cognizable offence under EC Act along with

S.420 IPC

Dashrath Kishan Kotkar and Anr.Vs.State

of Maharashtra1986MhLJ986

Cr.P.C. S.155(2) and (3) Once permission is

obtained the procedure applicable to

cognazable offences is applicable

Vithal Puna Koli (Shirsath) and Ors. Vs.

The State of Maharashtra-MH-0633-2006

Cr.P.C. S.155(2) Obtaining Magistrate's

permission is necessary

State of Maharashtra vs. Dharmendra

Ambar Mohite (10.09.1998 - BOMHC)

Cr.P.C. S.155(2) permission was not

obtained Hence prosecution for offence of

S.145 Police Act was held untenable

MukhedkarVs.The State of

Maharashtra,1983CriLJ1833

Cr.P.C. S.155(2) Prosecution for S.124 of

Bom Police Act quashed for want of

permission Avinash Madhukar

Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane Vs.Chandrasen

Jagdevrao Deshmuk 2008CriLJ376

Cr.P.C. S.156 and 397 156(3) of Cr.PC

merely mean that an alleged cognizable

offence should be investigated

Atul Son of Shridhar KapleVs.State of

Maharashtra, through Police Station

Officer2011 113 BOMLR1549

Cr.P.C. S.156 S.173(3) and s.190(1)(c).

Sakiri VasuState of U.P. and others and

other cases MANY CASES

Cr.P.C. S.156

Pravin Chandra ModyVs.State of Andhra

PradeshAIR1965SC1185

Cr.P.C. S.156(1) and 173 Police officer can

investigate E.C. Act offence along with

S.420

Sheshrao and Ors.Vs.The State of

Maharashtra and Ors.24.07.2015

Cr.P.C. S.156(1) Charge sheet quashed for

want of jurisdiction

Satvinder Kaur Vs.State (1999)8SCC728 Cr.P.C. S.156(2) Police can investigate any

cognizable offence and to submit charge

sheet before competent court

Alpic Finance Ltd.vsP. Sadasivan and

Anr.AIR2001SC1226

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and IPC S.420 It must also

be shown that there existed a fraudulent and

dishonest intention at the time of commission

of the offence

Vinay TyagiVs.Irshad Ali @ Deepak and

Ors. 2013CriLJ754

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 173(8) Kinds of order

under S.156(3) are (i) Initial Investigation,

(ii) Further Investigation, (iii) Fresh or de

novo or re-investigation-Detail

Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors.Vs.The State of

Assam and Anr.1961CriLJ39(3JJs)

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 190 Passing order of

S.156(3) or Search Warrant is not taking

Cognizance

(R.R. Chari etc followed )Gopal Das

Sindhi and Ors.Vs.The State of Assam and

Anr.1961CriLJ39

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 190 Taking Cognizance

on complaint means verification etc.

Nirmaljit Singh HoonVs.The State of West

BengalAIR1972SC2639

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 200 Cognizance means

not mere applying mind but for the purpose

of proceeding under S.200 and following

privisions

SachinVs.The State of

Maharashtra2014ALLMR(Cri)1833

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 200 Magistrate has

discretion to reject the prayer and direct for

verification etc.

Ramdev Food Products Private LimitedVs.

State of Gujarat2015(3)SCALE622

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 202 No arrest in

investigation of S.202

Raghu Raj Singh RoushaVs.Shivam

Sundaram Promoters ((2009)2SCC363

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 397 Accused shall be

impleaded in a revision against order

refusing S.156

Shivaji Vithalrao BhikaneVs.Chandrasen

Jagdevrao Deshmuk2008CriLJ3761

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 398 Interference in

revision should be in exceptional cases

Vasanti DubeyVs.State ofMadhya

Pradesh2012CriLJ1309

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and S.7 P.C. Act

Syed Muzaffaruddin Khan Mohd. Vs. .

Mohd.Abdul Qadir Mohd. Abdul. 2012

Bom C R(Cri) 375

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and S.195 and S.341

Magistrate can order S.156(3) and after

investigation he can file complaint

Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane Vs.Chandrasen

Jagdevrao Deshmukh2008CriLJ3761

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and S.397 Direction by

sessions judge for sending signature to the

expert set aside

U.P. HC in Chandrika SinghVs.State of

U.P2007CriLJ3169

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) application can be treated as

complaint

Mrs Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State

of UP & Ors2015 (96) SCC 287

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Application should be

supported by affidavit

Shivaji Vithalrao BhikaneVs.Chandrasen

Jagdevrao Deshmukh2008CriLJ3761

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Before the order

complainant cannot be asked to call experto

to prove forgery

Mohd. YousufVs.Smt. Afaq Jahan and

Anr.AIR2006SC705

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Complainant should not be

examined before order under this section

Srinivas Gundluri and

Ors.Vs.SEPCO(2010)8SCC206

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Difference of s.156(3) and

202 Cr.P.C. Mere direction to file charge

sheet not illegal

Upkar SinghVs.Ved Prakash and

Ors.AIR2004SC4320

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Direction to register counter

FIR is valid

Madhubala Vs. Sureshkumar

AIR1997SC3104

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Format of order

Anju ChaudharyVs.State of U.P. and

Anr.2013CriLJ776

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate can treat an

application as a complaint In more than one

FIRs sameness test has to be applied

CBI Central Bureau Of Investigation vs

State Of Gujarat MANU-GJ-0573-2001

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate cannot direct

Central Bureau of Investigation through

S.P., Jaipurvs.State of Rajasthan &

Anr.AIR2001SC668

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate cannot direct the

CBI investigation

K. SelvarajVs.The Superintendent of

Police and The Inspector of Police

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate cannot order

investigation by the CBI

Sachin Raosaheb Jadhav Vs State of

Maharashtra Justice Nalawade

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate has discretion

not to refer to police and to inquire himself

into the application

Sukhwasi son of Hulasi Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh 2008 Cri.L.J.472

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate has discretion to

send or not to send for investigation

Nilesh Daulatrao LakhaniVs.State of

Maharashtra2014(4)BomCR(Cri)757

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) No cognizance on police

report after first directing for inquiry

R.P. Kapur vs. S.P. Singh AIR 1961 SC

1117

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) No order to CBI by

Magistrate

Blue Dart Express Ltd.Vs.The State of

Maharashtra2011(2)Crimes46

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) order after verification was

set aside and directed to proceed

Yogiraj Vasantrao SurveVs.State of

Maharashtra2013ALLMR(Cri)2059

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) order can be challenged in

Revision

R.R. Chari Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh,

AIR 1951 SC 207

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Order does not amount to

taking cognizance 3 Judges Bench

Basanthi Sarkar and Ors.Vs.State of West

Bengal and Ors.MANU-WB-0218-2010

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) order in S.193 IPC offence

upheld by Kolkata HC

General Officer CommandingVs.CBI and

Anr.AIR2012SC1890

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) order is not taking

cognizance

Shivaji Vithalrao

BhikaneVs.Chandrasen2008CriLJ3761

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Orders interference by

superior Courts normally be in very

exceptional circumstances

Ajit Ramrao Thete and others Vs. the State

of Maharashtra and another Bombay (DB)

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Original Complaint and

order should be retained in Court

Mohd. YousufVs.Smt. Afaq Jahan and

Anr.2006(1)KLJ380

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Petition's Format and

nomenclature is not material It can be treated

as complaint

Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and

Ors.Vs.State of Karnataka and

Ors.AIR2012SC2326

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Police investigation may

start with registration of FIR while in other

cases (CBI, etc.), an inquiry may lead to

registration of an FIR

Laxminarayan Vishwanath AryaThe State

of Maharashtra through Senior Inspector of

Police and Ors.Vs.2008CriLJ1

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Police need not seek

permission of Magistrate to arrest accused

Raghu Raj Singh RoushaVs.Shivam

Sundaram Promoters (P) L and

Anr.(2009)2SCC363

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Refusing direction for

investigation and direction for verification

and statements is taking cognizance

Karnataka HC Sri. B.V. Acharya, Vs.Sri.

N. Venkateshaiah

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Sanction needed for even

order under section

Mr. Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani, Vs.The

State of Maharashtra 2010 Cri.L.J. 2723

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Simplicitor application

without FIR is tenable

Pinni Co-op Housing Society and others

Maruti Mathu Gaikwad and others Bom

DB dd on 02.07.2013CRAPPLN463510

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) This section cannot be

resorted to after direction to put up for

verification

Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and

Ors.AIR2008SC907

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) When can Magistrate

Monitor investigation

Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat and

Ors.(2008)5SCC668

Cr.P.C. S.156(3) While passing the order the

Magistrate has to apply mind

Rasiklal Dalpatram ThakkarVs.State of

Gujarat and Ors.AIR2010SC715

Cr.P.C. S.156(5) and 181(4) Jurisdiction to

be of the JMFC and not of the PSO

Mr. Panchabhai Popotbhai ButaniVs.The

State of Maharashtra2010CriLJ2723

Cr.P.C. S.156(6) Application without prior

F.I.R. tenable

(2009) 6 SCC 576 Cr.P.C. S.156(6) No inherent power to recall

order

State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance

and Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil

Nadu vs. V. Jayapaul (22.03.2004 -

SC)(2004)5SCC223

Cr.P.C. S.157 No statutory bar to the

informant-police officer for taking up the

investigation

The State of Uttar PradeshVs.Bhagwant

Kishore JoshiAIR1964SC221

Cr.P.C. S.157 and PC Act Investigation can

be started on information or otherwise means

without FIR

S.N. SharmaVs.Bipen Kumar Tiwari and

Ors.AIR1970SC786

Cr.P.C. S.159 does not enable Magistrate to

stop investigation

S.N. SharmaVs.Bipen Kumar Tiwari and

Ors.AIR1970SC786

Cr.P.C. S.159 Gives limited power to

Magistrate to direct investigate proceed

himself but no power to stop investigation

S.N. SharmaVs.Bipen Kumar Tiwari and

Ors.AIR1970SC786

Cr.P.C. S.159 Meant to give Magistrate the

power of directing investigation where the

police decide not to investigate the case

under the proviso to Section 157(1)

Ashok DebbarmaVs.State of

Tripura(2014)4SCC747

Cr.P.C. S.161 and 154 Omission to name

accused when he was part of group is not

fatal

State of N.C.T. of

DelhiVs.Mukesh(2013)2SCC58

Cr.P.C. S.161 and 162 and Evi Act S.145

Statement on TV channel subsequent to

charge sheet is not covered Bipin Panchal

distinguished

Mahesh Janardhan GonnadeVs.State of

Maharashtra(2008)13SCC271

Cr.P.C. S.161 and 164 Testimony of I.O. and

Spl Judl. Magi. cannot be disbelieved and

discredited

Ashok Debbarma @ Achak

DebbarmaVs.State of Tripura

(2014)4SCC747

Cr.P.C. S.161 Every omission is not

contradiction

State of GujaratVs.Kathi Ramku

Aligbhai1986CriLJ239

Cr.P.C. S.161 Inadmissible portions in the

panchana should be marked by the APP and

excluded by the Juge and How to appreciate

witnesses

State of U.P.Vs.M.K.

AnthonyAIR1985SC48.

AnthonyAIR1985SC48

Cr.P.C. S.161 Signature of witness does not

render evidence inadmissible

Nirpal Singh and Ors.Vs.State of

HaryanaAIR1977SC1066

Cr.P.C. S.161 Statement of witness need not

be there in inquest panchanama

Gujarat High Court Full Bench Nathu

ManchhuVs.The State of

Gujarat1978CriLJ448

Cr.P.C. S.161 Statement reading over to

witness does not make his evidence

inadmissible

SureshVs.The State of Maharashtra (DB)

Decided On_ 31.10.2014

Cr.P.C. S.161 Statement should not be read

over to the witness by the police

Md. Ankoos and Ors.Vs.The Public

Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.

AIR2010SC566

Cr.P.C. S.161(3) Statement cannot be used

Dr. Sunil Clifford DanielVs.State of

Punjab(2012)11SCC205

Cr.P.C. S.161_ In view of exception of

S.162(2) to S.161, statement of accused

under S.27 Evi Act need not be signed by

accused.

State of Kerala Vs.Babu &

OrsAIR1999SC2161

Cr.P.C. S.162 and 161 and 91 Magistrate can

call case diary of another case

Mr. Prakash VernekarVs.State of

Goa2007CriLJ4649

Cr.P.C. S.162 and 452 and S.27 not barred

for deciding custody of muddemal

Mr. Prakash Vernekar Vs. State of Goa

2007 Cri.L.J. 4649

Cr.P.C. S.162 and S.27 Statement is not

barred for deciding custody of muddemal

Pakala Narayana

SwamiVs.EmperorAIR1939PC47

Cr.P.C. S.162 Any confession made to a

police officer in course of investigation

whether a discovery is made or not is

excluded

Khatri and Ors.Vs.State of Bihar and

Ors.AIR1981SC1068

Cr.P.C. S.162 Bar is not applicable in civil or

other proceeding

Tahsildar Singh and Anr.Vs.The State of

Uttar PradeshAIR1959SC1012

Cr.P.C. S.162 Contradictions an omissions

Ramkishan Mithanlal SharmaVs.The State

of BombayAIR1955SC104

Cr.P.C. S.162 covers statements to police

during TIP

George & Ors vs State Of Kerala (1998) 4

SCC 605

Cr.P.C. S.162 Statement of I.O. in the

inquest what he saw is admissible

State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere

PoliceVs.Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna

2014(3)BomCR(Cri)98

(2014(3)BomCR(Cri)98)

Cr.P.C. S.164 and IPC S.376 Directions to

Police and Magistrates

Cr.P.C. S.164 and S.30 Evi Act Recording

confession by other than jurisdiction

Magistrate upheld

AIR1981SC1165 Cr.P.C. S.164 and S.80 Evidence Act SC

says Magistrate need not be examined Madi

Ganga

The State of MaharashtraVs.Prakash

Dhawal Khairnar1997BomCR(Cri)367

Cr.P.C. S.164 Confession

Dhananjaya Reddy etc.vs.State of

KarnatakaAIR2001SC1512

Cr.P.C. S.164 Confession without signature

of accused inadmissible

Abdul Razak ShaikhVs.State of

Maharashtra1987MhLJ863

Cr.P.C. S.164 Signature of accused is

mandatory Bom. DB

Abdul_Razak_Shaikh_vs_State_Of_Mahar

ashtra_on_7_August,_1987

Cr.P.C. S.164 Signature of accused on

confession Mandatory

State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere

PoliceVs.Shivanna @ Tarkari

Shivanna2014ALLMR(Cri)4484(2014)8S

CC913

Cr.P.C. S.164 statement of victim girl should

not be disclosed to any person till final report

State Of Maharashtra vs Sharad B.

Sarda1983 (1) BomCR 578

Cr.P.C. S.167 60th or 90th day though

holiday cannot be excluded

Bom. HC Abdul Wahid Vs State Of

Maharashtra on 27 August 1991

Cr.P.C. S.167 After charge sheet bail under

section 436 or 437 only

Asgar Yusuf Mukadam and Ors.Vs.State of

Maharashtra and The Superintendent of

Prison2004CriLJ4312

Cr.P.C. S.167 Allowing Home Food is in

disreation of Magistrate

Kum. Shraddha Meghshyam Velhal Vs

State of Maharashtra

Cr.P.C. S.167 and 4 and POCSO Act JFCM

has no jurisdiction to remand take

cognizance and commit under PCSO Act

State through C.B.I. Vs.Dawood Ibrahim

Kaskar and othersAIR1997SC2494

Cr.P.C. S.167 and 309 If accused was not

arrested till taking cognizance his remand

can be granted

In Re_ Jakir Khan @ JakerMANU-WB-

0253-2012

Cr.P.C. S.167 and 437 Transit Remand

granted by rejecting bail

Tamizharasi and another Vs.Assistant

Director, Narcotic Control

Bureau1996CriLJ208

Cr.P.C. S.167 and NDPS Act

Bom HC

Daji_Govind_Kamble_vs_State_Of_Mahar

ashtra

Cr.P.C. S.167 and S.36 of NDPS Act

Magistrate remanded for more than 15 days

Bom. HC B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Collector Of

... vs Leidomann Heinrich And Another on

20 November, 1990

Cr.P.C. S.167 bail in serious offences NDPS

can be cancelled

CBI vs. Anupam Kulkarni Cr.P.C. S.167

Bhupinder_Singh_&_Ors_vs_Jarnail_Sing

h_&_Anr_on_13_July,_2006

Cr.P.C. S.167 For S.304B of IPC 90 days SC

Rajeev Chowdhary case referred

Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs State Of

Maharashtra on 12 July, 1994

Cr.P.C. S.167 for TADA offences

Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir

KasabVs.State of

MaharashtraAIR2012SC3565

Cr.P.C. S.167 Free legal aid should be

provided from the stage of remand

Khatri And Others vs State Of Bihar

AIR1981SC928

Cr.P.C. S.167 Free Legal aid to be given at

remand stage

G.K._Moopanar,_M.L.A._And_Others_vs

_State_Of_Tamil_Nadu_on_16_March,_19

90

Cr.P.C. S.167

Prasad V.Vs.State of

KeralaILR2013(2)Kerala1010

Cr.P.C. S.167 in POCSO Act offence

Magistrate can entertain first remand

Arnesh KumarVs.State of Bihar

AIR2014SC2756.

Cr.P.C. S.167 In S.498A IPC the Magistrate

authorising detention without recording

reasons is liable for departmental action

Nijamuddin_Mohammad_Bashir_Khan_...

_vs_State_Of_Maharashtra_on_7_July,_20

06

Cr.P.C. S.167 Limitation is 60 days for 10

years imprisonment

Khatri And Others vs State Of Bihar 1981

SCC (1) 627

Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate and Judges shall

inform accused about free legal aid

Harihar Chaitanya vs State Of U.P.1990

CriLJ 2082

Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate can differ with the

I.O.

Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr. Ushaben Vs.

State of Gujarat and ors., AIR 2013 SC 313

Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate has to look into

facts before granting remand

Khatri And Others vs State Of Bihar 1981

SCC (1) 627

Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate is under obligation

to inform availability of free legal aid Free

Legal aid

Mr. Uday Mohanlal AcharyaVs.State of

Maharashtra2001CriLJ4563

Cr.P.C. S.167

StateVs. Santokh SinghAIR43 1956

Madhya Pradesh 13

Cr.P.C. S.167 No police custody of

imprisoned accused

CBI vs. Anupam Kulkarni (1992)3SCC141 Cr.P.C. S.167 PCR should be within the first

Fifteen days only and that period cannot be

extended under any circumstances

Rajeev Chowdhary case referred

Nijamuddin_Mohammad_Bashir_Khan_...

_vs_State_Of_Maharashtra_on_7_July,_20

06

Cr.P.C. S.167 Period is 60 days for S.395

and 366 IPC Bom

Bhupinder_Singh_&_Ors_vs_Jarnail_Sing

h_&_Anr_on_13_July,_2006

Cr.P.C. S.167 Period is 90 days for S.304B

IPC

Devender Kumar Vs. State of Haryana

2010CriLJ3849

Cr.P.C. S.167 Police custody can be in the

first 15 days only. Cancellation of bail set

aside

NarainVs.Superintendent, Central Jail,

New DelhiAIR1971SC178

Cr.P.C. S.167 Remand in absence of accused

who is not produced from jail is not illegal

Raj

Mr. Uday Mohanlal AcharyaVs.State of

Maharashtra2001CriLJ4563

Cr.P.C. S.167 Right to bail is defeated if not

availed already

AIR 1986 Raj 58 (FB) Cr.P.C. S.167 S.309 CJM has district

jurisdiction No bail than Cr.P.C.

Cr.P.C. S.167 S.309 Rajastan FB CJM has

district jurisdiction No bail than Cr.P.C

Arnesh KumarVs.State of

BiharAIR2014SC2756

Cr.P.C. S.167 Supreme Court directions

regarding arrested accused

State of WB Vs. Dinesh Dalmia AIR 2007

SC 1801

Cr.P.C. S.167 Surrender is different from

production by police

State of Maharashtra and Ors.Vs.Saeed

Sohail Sheikh etc.AIR2013SC168

Cr.P.C. S.167 Transfer of Under prisoners to

other jails is subject to Judicial order

Iqbal Kaur Kwatra vs The Director General

Of Police1996 (2) ALT 138 AP High

Court

Cr.P.C. S.167 Transit Remand

Rajeev_Chaudhary_vs_State_(N.C.T.)_Of_

Delhi_on_4_May,_2001

Cr.P.C. S.167(2(

Central Bureau of InvestigationVs.Rathin

Dandapat and Ors.2015(9)SCALE120

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Absconding accused

arrested after charge sheet can be remanded

to PCR

Aslam Babalal DesaiVs.State of

MaharashtraAIR1993SC1

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Accused released on default

ground cannot be arrested on only count of

filing of charge sheet

Sajid Basir ShaikhVs.State of

Maharashtra2005(3)MhLj860

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) After charge sheet Right of

accused is defeated if he fails to exercise

Bashir And Others vs State Of

HaryanaBashir and Ors.Vs.State of

HaryanaAIR1978SC55

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) and 437 Mere filing of

charge sheet not sufficient to cancel bail

B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Collector of

CustomsVs.Mohmed Azan Khan and

others 1990MhLJ582

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) and NDPS Act Limit of 15

days is for police custody and not for other

agency custody

Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak

Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) and S.4(2)_ Magistrate has

jurisdiction to remand in Customs Act case

Sayed Mohd. Ahmed KazmiVs.State,

GNCTD and Ors.AIR2012SC660

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) and Unlawful Activities Act

S.43D Magistrate has to grant default bail

after the 90 days under Unlawful Activities

Act

Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak

Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) appicable to accused

produced by other than police

Union of India (UOI)Vs.Thamisharasi and

Ors.(1995)4SCC190

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) applicable to NDPS Act

Union of India (UOI)Vs.Nirala

YadavAIR2014SC3036

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Application filed for default

bail cannot be rejected due to filing of charge

sheet before decision of bail application

B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Collector Of ... vs

Leidomann Heinrich And Another 1991

CriLJ 552

Cr.P.C. S.167(2)

AnilkumarVs.State of

Maharashtra1990CriLJ2058

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Bail cancelled by sessions

court under section 439(2) in NDPS Case

Bashir_And_Others_vs_State_Of_Haryana

_on_3_October,_1977

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Bail cannot be cancelled on

mere count of filing charge sheet leter on

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs

Anupam J. Kulkarni AIR1992SC1768

Cr.P.C. S.167(2)

Chaganti Satyanarayana and Ors.Vs.State

of Andhra PradeshAIR1986SC2130

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Date of production before

magistrate is starting point

Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak

Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Entry in diary in not a sine

quo non

Nijamuddin Mohammad Bashir Khan and

Anr.Vs.State of

Maharashtra2006CriLJ4266

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) For S.306 IPC period for

filing chargesheet against UTP is 60 days

State of Uttar PradeshVs.Lakshmi

Brahman and Anr.AIR1983SC439

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) From charge sheet till

committal it is inquiry

Bhulabai wdo Barkaji MatreVs.Shankar

Barkaji Matre and others S.167

CRPC1999(3) Mh.L.J. 227

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) If charge sheet is not filed

in time explanation of IO to be called

Sayed Mohd. Ahmed KazmiVs.State,

GNCTD and Ors.AIR2012SC660

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) in Unlawful Activities

(Prevention) Act, 1967

Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak

Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) is applicable to accused

arrested under FERA Act

Jeewan Kumar Raut and Anr.Vs.Central

Bureau of InvestigationAIR2009SC2763

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) is not applicable to offences

under TOHO Act as it provides for complaint

only

Satyajit Ballulbhai Desai and Ors.Vs.State

of GujaratI(2015)CCR321(SC)

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Magistrate has to judicially

scrutinise circumstances and if satisfied order

police custody

Sayed Mohd. Ahmed KazmiVs.State,

GNCTD and Ors.AIR2012SC660

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Magistrate kept application

undecided till charge sheet Held accused is

entitled for bail

Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. Vs.Home

Secretary, State of Bihar,

PatnaAIR1979SC1369

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Magistrate shall inform the

accused about the right to free legal aid and

to provide it

Aslam Babalal DesaiVs.State of

MaharashtraAIR1993SC1

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Merits not be considered

Sajid Basir Shaikh vs SOM2005 (3) MhLJ

860

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Not indefeasible

Umashanker_And_Ors._vs_State_Of_Mad

hya_Pradesh

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Pending bail application

allowed

Nijamuddin Mohammad Bashir Khan and

Anr.Vs.State of

Maharashtra2006CriLJ4266

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Period is 60 days for S.306

IPC

Shakil Khan Yasin KhanVs.The State of

Maharashtra MANU-MH-0047-2014

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Period is 60 days for S.306

IPC

Rajeev Chaudharyvs.State (N.C.T.) of

DelhiAIR2001SC2369

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Period is 60 days for S.386

IPC as punishment does not exceed 10 years

Bhupinder_Singh_&_Ors_vs_Jarnail_Sing

h_&_Anr_on_13_July,_2006

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Period is 90 days for

S.304B IPC

Bhulabai wdo Barkaji MatreVs.Shankar

Barkaji Matre and others S.167

CRPC1999(3) Mh.L.J. 227

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Procedure to be followed by

Magistrate

Rajeev Chaudhary case A Comment Cr.P.C. S.167(2)

Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak

Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Remand under FERA Act

permissible

Palanisamy @ PalaniVs.State rep. by

Inspector of Police2003-1-LW(Crl)239

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Sanction is not part of

investigation Magistrate cannot refuse charge

sheet

Uday Mohanlal Acharyavs.State of

Maharashtra AIR 2001 SC1 910

Cr.P.C. S.167(2)

Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand JainVs.State

of Maharashtra and Anr.(2013)3SCC77

Cr.P.C. S.167(2) When Charge sheet is filed

and Sanction awaited Hence no bail

Nijamuddin_Mohammad_Bashir_Khan_...

_vs_State_Of_Maharashtra_on_7_July,_20

06

Cr.P.C. S.167(2)(a)(ii) 60 days for 10 years

offence

Hussainara Khatoon and Ors.Vs.Home

Secretary, State of Bihar,

PatnaAIR1979SC1377

Cr.P.C. S.167(5) Two options

Abhinandan Jha and Ors.Vs.Dinesh

MishraAIR1968SC117

Cr.P.C. S.169 and 173 Magistrate cannot

direct police to file charge sheet

Rameshbhai Jagjivan Vora Authorised

Signatory of Gaekwad Vs.State of Gujarat

and Ors.2010GLH(2)588

Cr.P.C. S.169 application before magistrate

is not tenable GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Abhinandan Jha and Ors.Vs.Dinesh

MishraAIR1968SC117

Cr.P.C. S.169 Magistrate cannot direct police

to file charge sheet

Mohd. Rafique Abdul Rahman Vs. State of

Maharashtra 2013 Bom.C.R.(Cri) 251

Cr.P.C. S.169 Magistrate does not come in

picture under this section

MarotiVs.The State of Maharashtra and

Ors.2015(4)BomCR(Cri)504

Cr.P.C. S.169 Mere report without final

report under S.173 is not tenable

Mohd. RafiqueVs.State of

Maharashtra2013BomCR(Cri)251

Cr.P.C. S.169 report before Magistration is

not tenable

MarotiVs.The State of

MaharashtraDecided On_ 04.02.2015

Cr.P.C. S.169 Report is report of action taken

by IO and not final report

Kedar Narayan Parida & Ors vs State Of

Orissa & Anr (2009)9SCC538

Cr.P.C. S.169 Report received regarding

some accused. Court can direct investigation

under S.156(3)

The State of BiharVs.Chandra Bhushan

Singh & Ors.AIR2001SC429

Cr.P.C. S.173 and 2(d) A plaint by sub-

inspector of RPF is a complaint and not a

charge sheet

StateVs.Shankar Bhaurao

KhirodeAIR1959Bom437

Cr.P.C. S.173 and Rule 203 of the Bombay

Police Manual, Volume III Summaries A B

and C explained

Union Public Service Commission Vs.S.

Papaiah and othersAIR1997SC3876

Cr.P.C. S.173 Court was not justified in

accepting final report without notice to the

informant

Thana SinghVs.Central Bureau of

Narcotics(2013)2SCC590

Cr.P.C. S.173 Electronic charge sheet -SC

directed to supply copy of charge sheet in

electronic form additionally

Popular MuthiahVs.State represented by

Inspector of Police2006(2)ACR2157(SC)

Cr.P.C. S.173 Options available to

Magistrate

Vinay TyagiVs.Irshad Ali (2013)5SCC762 Cr.P.C. S.173 Reinvestigation and further

investigation is explained in

Abhinandan Jha and Ors.Vs.Dinesh

MishraAIR1968SC117

Cr.P.C. S.173 Report may be one under

section 169 or 170 Magistrate cannot direct

to file charge sheet

Thana SinghVs.Central Bureau of

Narcotics(2013)2SCC590

Cr.P.C. S.173 SC directed to supply copy of

charge sheet in electronic form additionally

Bandi KotayyaVs.State (S.H.O.

Nandigama) and Ors.AIR1966AP377

Cr.P.C. S.173 When cognizance is said to be

taken

Chittaranjan MirdhaVs.Dulal Ghosh and

Anr.(2009)6SCC661

Cr.P.C. S.173(2)(I) Different situations

before Magistrate are discussed

Jakia Nasim Ahesan & Anr. vs State Of

Gujarat AIR 2012 SC 243

Cr.P.C. S.173(2)(i) Magistrate to issue

Notice to the informant if not taking

cognizance

Rama ChaudharyVs.State of

BiharAIR2009SC2308

Cr.P.C. S.173(8) (2 Judges Bench held)

Magistrates prior permission is not required

for further investigation-Reinvestigation is

distinct

Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and ors. Vs.

State of Gujarat (2009)6SCC332

Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Accused directed to appear

for interrogation without being arrested

State through C.B.I. Vs.Dawood Ibrahim

Kaskar and othersAIR1997SC2494

Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Accused subsequently

arrested Magistrate has dicretion to try

together or separately

Hemant Dhasmane vs.Central Bureau of

Investigation and anr.AIR2001SC2721

Cr.P.C. S.173(8) can be triggered by

Magistrate

Hasanbhai Valibhai QureshiVs.State of

Gujarat and Ors.AIR2004SC2078

Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Permits further

investigation, and even dehors any direction

from the Court as such

Ram Lal NarangVs.State (Delhi

Administration)AIR1979SC1791

Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Police has power to further

investigate but to inform and seek formal

permission of Magistrate

Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha

Venkata Vishwandadha Maharaj Vs.State

of Andhra Pradesh & OrsAIR1999SC2332

Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Police should inform the

Magistrate and seek formal permission

Chandra BabuVsState and

Ors.(2015)8SCC774

Cr.P.C. S.173(8)_ Magistrate has jurisdiction

to direct further investigation

Krishna Kumar VariarVs.Share

Shoppe(2010)12SCC485

Cr.P.C. S.177 178 and 181 Objection of

jurisdiction to be raised before summoning

Court

State of Andhra PradeshVs.Cheemalapati

Ganeswara Rao and Anr.AIR1963SC1850

Cr.P.C. S.177 does not govern S.223(d)

Court can try offences committed in same

course of transaction in other jurisdiction

State of Maharashtra Vs.Anjanabai

1997CriLJ2309

Cr.P.C. S.177 does not govern S.223(d)

Court can try offences committed in same

course of transaction in other jurisdiction

Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors.Vs.Inspector of

Police, Chennai and Anr.AIR2004SC4286

Cr.P.C. S.177 Illtreatment took at husbands

place No part of offence at her parents place

Hence complaint returned

Mahender GoyalVs.Messers Kadamba

International2014CriLJ1645

Cr.P.C. S.177 to 186 Complaint returning

procedure laid down by Madras High Court

in

Union of India (UOI) and Anr.Vs.B.N.

Ananthapadmanabhiah etc.1974--

LW(Crl)82 Three judges

Cr.P.C. S.179 Old Act A Magistrate's

jurisdiction is limited to his territorial

jurisdiction

Mrs. Minguelin LoboVs.Smt. Archana

Sawant MANU-MH-1302-2004

Cr.P.C. S.187 If the offence took beyond

jurisdiction, the Magistrate should summon

accused and then transfer

Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs.Rajesh

Agarwal and othersAIR1999SC3499

Cr.P.C. S.187 Power of any Magistrate of the

First Class to take cognizance of the offence

is not impaired by territorial restrictions

Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh

Agarwal and others AIR1999SC3499

Cr.P.C. S.187 power to take cognizance of

the offence is not impaired by territorial

restrictions

Musaraf Hossain KhanVs.Bhageeratha

Engg. Ltd. and Ors.AIR2006SC1288

Cr.P.C. S.188 Convenience of the Victim is

important

UshabenVs.Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada

and Ors.2012ACR1859

Cr.P.C. S.189A IPC Sec.494 cognizable with

S. 498A on police report cognizable

Kishore Kumar Gyanchandani vs G.D.

Mehrotra And Anr. AIR 2002 SC 483

Cr.P.C. S.190 Acceptance of final report

does not debar the Magistrate from taking

cognizance on the basis of the materials

produced in a complaint proceeding.

Uma Shankar Vs.State of Bihar and

Anr.(2010)9SCC479

Cr.P.C. S.190 and 319 Magistrate can take

cognizance against the accused named in FIR

but omitted in the charge sheet

SWIL Ltd. vs. State of Delhi

(2001)6SCC670

Cr.P.C. S.190 At the stage of taking

cognizance there is no question of S.319

Messers

Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors.Vs.The State of

Assam and Anr.1961CriLJ39

Cr.P.C. S.190 Cognizance taking means

SITA case Bombay (DB) State vs

Mainabai AIR 1962 Bom 202

Cr.P.C. S.190 Faulty Investiation not to

vitiate the trial unless there was prejudice

State vs MainabaiAIR 1962 Bom 202 Cr.P.C. S.190 Faulty Investiation not to

vitiate the trial unless there was prejudice

Rakesh & anr Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

2014 STPL(Web) 524 SC

Cr.P.C. S.190 In Sessions cases Magistrate

has to see only sufficient ground for

proceeding and not required to weigh

evidence meticulously SC Nupur

TalwarCentral Bureau of Investigation and

Anr

H.S. BainsVs.State (Union Territory of

Chandigarh)(1980)4SCC631

Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate accepted B final

report but proceded under Ss.200 and 202

and took cognizance-Upheld in

Vijay Kant Thakur and Anr.Vs.Stale of

Bihar and Anr.2010CriLJ4190

Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate can differ with PSO

on police report and issue process for

different sections

Rajinder Prasad vs. Bashir and

ors.AIR2001SC3524

Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate can take

cognizance against other accused on

subsequent date also

Chittaranjan MirdhaVs.Dulal Ghosh and

Anr.(2009)6SCC661

Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate can take

cognizance aginst other than charge sheeted

India_Carat_Pvt._Ltd_vs_State_Of_Karnat

aka_&_Anr_on_15_February,_1989

Cr.P.C. S.190 Notice to informant is

necessary if cognizance is not taken

Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors.Vs.The State of

Assam and Anr.1961CriLJ39(3JJs)

Cr.P.C. S.190 Options to Magistrate

M.C. MehtaVs.Union of India (UOI) and

Ors.(2007)1SCC110

Cr.P.C. S.190 Passing order of S.156(3) or

Search Warrant is not taking Cognizance

H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh Vs.The

State of Delhi AIR 1955 SC 196

Cr.P.C. S.190 Taj corridor case

Rajinder Prasad vs. Bashir and ors. AIR

2001 SC 3524

Cr.P.C. S.190 Trial is not vitiated if the

cognizance is valid

India Carat Pvt. Ltd.Vs.State of Karnataka

and Anr.AIR1989SC885

Cr.P.C. S.190(1)(b) Magistrate can proceed

against accused not charge sheeted

India Carat Pvt. Ltd.Vs.State of Karnataka

and Anr.AIR1989SC885

Cr.P.C. S.190(1)(b) Magistrate can take

cognizance from the material of final report

even if police say no offence madeout

Rattiram and Ors.Vs.State of M.P. through

Inspector of PoliceAIR2012SC1485

Cr.P.C. S.190(1)(b) Options to Magistrate He

can take cognizance from material of final

report even if police say no offence madeout

Ratiram and others Vs State of M.P Cr.P.C. S.193 and SC and ST Act Trial is not

vitiated on mere count that Sessions Court

directly accepted the charge sheet

1999CriLJ4173 Cr.P.C. S.193 and SC ST POA Act Though

case was not committed Cognizance by

Session Trial was not viated

Kishun Singh and Ors.Vs.State of

Bihar(1993)2SCC16

Cr.P.C. S.193 Charge-sheet to be returned to

police for presenting before JMFC for

committal in SC and ST POA Act Referring

Officer

Daulat RamVs.State of

PunjabAIR1962SC1206

Cr.P.C. S.193 On committal Sessions Court

gets jurisdiction to take cognizance against

new accused on same material

M. Narayandas vs State Of Karnataka And

Ors.,2004 Cri.L.J. 822

Cr.P.C. S.195 and IPC s.182 it is incumbent

that a complaint in writing should be made

by the public servant concerned for only

KAMLAPATI TRIVEDI Vs.

RESPONDENT_ STATE OF WEST

BENGAL1979 AIR 777

Cr.P.C. S.195 and S.340 Court can file

complaint on the basis of FIR and

investigation provided 340 is followed

In Re_ Vishwanath M. Hegde

AIR1951Bom289

Cr.P.C. S.195 Attracted for S.211 IPC Held

SC 2_1 in

Mahesh Chand SharmaVs.State of U.P. and

Ors.(2009)15SCC519

Cr.P.C. S.195 Complaint for S.500 IPC

maintenable though the act falls under S.211

IPC also

Syed Muzaffaruddin Khan Mohd. vs

Mohd.Abdul Qadir Mohd. Abdul

Cr.P.C. S.195 No bar to complaint of false

mutation entry outside court

Syed Muzaffaruddin Khan Mohd. vs

Mohd.Abdul Qadir Mohd. Abdul

Cr.P.C. S.195 no bar to S.156

M.L. SethiVs.R.P. Kapur and

Anr.AIR1967SC528

Cr.P.C. S.195 Not a bar to order of S.156(3)

as the bar comes after investigation Then

Court can file complaint

Rama Rao and Anr.Vs.Narayan and

Anr.AIR1969SC724

Cr.P.C. S.195 not bar for S.211 IPC

State of PunjabVs.Brij Lal

PaltaAIR1969SC355

Cr.P.C. S.195 Registrar Co-op societies is

not a Court

Ajaib Singh and Anr. vs. Joginder Singh

and Anr. AIR1968SC1422

Cr.P.C. S.195

State of PunjabVs.Brij Lal

PaltaAIR1969SC355

Cr.P.C. S.195 Successor-in-office a

Magistrate can file a complant. Limitation

under police Act for offence under police Act

only

Nandkishor Laxminarayan Mundhada And

Ors 2008CriLJ990

Cr.P.C. S.195 There can be no objection to

the continuance of proceedings relating to

offences for other than those covered by

Sections 182, 211 and 193 IPC

Iqbal Singh Marwah and

Anr.Vs.Meenakshi Marwah and

Anr.AIR2005SC2119

Cr.P.C. S.195 Will forged prior to production

before court. No bar. Bom says

Abdul Rehman and Ors. vs. K.M. Anees-

ul-Haq 2012CriLJ1060

Cr.P.C. S.195(1) Bars unless the complaint is

by the Court

Kamlapati TrivediVs.State of West

BengalAIR1979SC777

Cr.P.C. S.195(1)(b) attracted for S.211 IPC

Chartered Accountants of IndiaVs.Vimal

Kumar Surana and Anr. (2011) 1 SCC(Cri)

442

Cr.P.C. S.195(1)(b) Complaint by Court

required for S.211 offence on False police

report

M.S. SheriffVs.The State of Madras and

Ors.AIR1954SC397

Cr.P.C. S.195(1)(b)(ii) and 4 Case on police

report is tenable by excluding the offences

which can be taken cognizance on complaint

The Institute of

Durgacharan Naik and Ors.Vs.State of

OrissaAIR1966SC1775

Cr.P.C. S.195(3) Criminal proceedings

should be given precedence and the civil

proceedings should be stayed

State of Maharashtra Vs.Dr. B.K. Subbarao

and another1993CriLJ2984 Overruled

Cr.P.C. S.195Convicted under 353 acquitted

under 186 of IPC

General Officer CommandingVs.CBI and

Anr.AIR2012SC1890

Cr.P.C. S.197 (Overruled) For want of

sanction accused was acquitted instead of

discharge

SC State of Madhya PradeshSheetla Sahai

and Ors.(2009)8SCC617

Cr.P.C. S.197 and P.C. Act S.19 Sanction is

required for taking cognizance and not for

taking charge sheet

State of Kerala Vs.V. Padmnabhan

Nair(1999)5SCC690

Cr.P.C. S.197 and P.C. Act S.19ection 197

requires sanction both for those who were or

are public servants

Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana AIR

1987 SC 735

Cr.P.C. S.197 Criminal Breach of trust is not

part of duty

State of Maharashtra Vs.Dr. B.K. Subbarao

and another1993CriLJ2984 Overruled

Cr.P.C. S.197 Due to want of valid sanction

order will not operate as acquittal

State of U.P.Vs.Paras Nath

Singh2009CriLJ3069

Cr.P.C. S.197 For want of sanction accused

was aquitted instead of discharge

State of Orissa through Cr.P.C. S.197 Forgery etc are not part of duty

and hence want of sanction is no bar

Kumar Raghvendra Singh and

Ors.Vs.Ganesh Chandra Jew

Cr.P.C. S.197 is and was

Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand

JainVs.Pandey Ajay Bhushan and

Ors.AIR1998SC1524

Cr.P.C. S.197 Necessit of sanction can be

considered after evidence when it cannot be

decided without evidence

Mohd. Hadi RajaVs. State of Bihar and

Anr.AIR1998SC1945

Cr.P.C. S.197 not applicable to public sector

undertaking employee

Parkash Singh Badal and Anr. vs State of

Punjab and Ors(2007)1SCC1

Cr.P.C. S.197 Power under S.156(3) is

discretionary

Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh &

Orsvs.Jammal Patel and

Ors.AIR2001SC2198

Cr.P.C. S.197 Real test is if the complained

acts were not done should it amount to

dereliction of duty then sanction is necessary

Matajog DobeyVs.H.C.

BhariAIR1956SC44

Cr.P.C. S.197 Sanction is required to

prosecute when the search party was

obstructed and there was just a scuffle

Kerala HC

Sankarankutty_Menon_And_Ors._vs_Dep

uty_Superintendent_Of_Police,_..._on_3_J

anuary,_1961

Cr.P.C. S.197 Sanction Test

Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand

JainVs.Pandey Ajay Bhushan and

Ors.AIR1998SC1524

Cr.P.C. S.197 Whether the accused was

discharging public servant's duty or not can

be considered during the progress of the case

Kumar Raghvendra Singh and

Ors.Vs.Ganesh Chandra Jew

Cr.P.C. S.197 Words used are -is and was -

State of Orissa through

Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas Vs. State Of

Maharashtra & Anr, AIR 1967 SC 983

Cr.P.C. S.198 and S.495 of IPC complainant

died mother continued complaint

S Cr.P.C. S.198 Cognizance of S.494 with

S.498A of IPC on charge sheet permissible

tate of Orisssa Vs.Sharat Chandra Sahu and

another

Cr.P.C. S.198- IPC Sec.494 cognizable with

S. 498A on police report cognizable

UshabenVs.Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada

and Ors.2012ACR1859

Cr.P.C. S.199 Where police took no action

inspite of information remedy lies in filing

complaint

Divine Retreat CentreVs.State of Kerala

and Ors.AIR2008SC1614

Cr.P.C. S.200 in N.I. Act cases Affidavits are

allowed in lieu of verification

Rajesh Bhalchandra ChalkeVs.State of

Maharashtra and Emco Dynatorq Pvt.

Ltd.2011(1)MhLj244

Cr.P.C. S.200 Second complaint on same

facts when tenable remanded to High Court

Poonam Chand Jain 2005 SCC (Cri) 190 Cr.P.C. S.201 Complaint cannot be returned

after issuing summons

Devendra Kishanlal DagaliaVs.Dwarkesh

Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. and

Ors.AIR2014SC655

Cr.P.C. S.202 Amended Examining

witnesses is a compliance of postponement

Vijay Dhanuka Etc.Vs.Najima Mamtaj

Etc2014CriLJ2295

Cr.P.C. S.202 In session triable offences it is

not mandatory but advisable to examine all

witnesses

Shivjee SinghVs.Nagendra Tiwary and

Ors.AIR2010SC2261

Cr.P.C. S.202 Inquiry mandatory when

accused is from far away place

2014_STPL(Web)_218_SC Cr.P.C. S.202 Magistrate is not a silent

spectator He may put questions to elicite

truth Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr.Vs.Special

Judicial

Magistrate and Ors.AIR1998SC128 Cr.P.C. S.202 Once complaint was quashed

on the ground of similar complaint being

peding further complaint is not tenable

Rajeev SawhneyVs.State Bank of

Mauritius Ltd. and Ors.2011(6)MhLj401

Cr.P.C. S.202 Shall does not mean

mandatory Not necessary to examine all

witnesses in inquiry

Shivjee SinghVs.Nagendra Tiwary and

Ors.AIR2010SC2261

Cr.P.C. S.203 Magistrate has no jurisdiction

to recall the process

Adalat PrasadVs.Rooplal Jindal and

Ors.(2004)7SCC338

Cr.P.C. S.203 Sessions Trial case dismissed

by Magistrate an error within jurisdiction

Kewal Krishan Lachman DasVs.Suraj

Bhan and Anr.AIR1980SC1780

Cr.P.C. S.204 (Check this ratio) On receiving

police report process need not be issued

Nilesh Daulatrao Lakhani vs. State of

Maharashtra2014(4)BomCR(Cri)757

Cr.P.C. S.204 Adalat Prasad case applicable

to Summons and Warrant cases

Subramanium SethuramanVs.State of

Maharashtra and Anr.2004CriLJ4609

Cr.P.C. S.204 and NI Act S.138 Adalat

Prasad followed in

Subramanium SethuramanVs.State of

Maharashtra and Anr. (2004)13SCC324

Cr.P.C. S.204 Challenge to jurisdiction shall

be made by application before trial court

Krishna Kumar VariarVs.Share

Shoppe2010CriLJ3848

Cr.P.C. S.204 Check this ratio On receiving

police report process need not be issued

Nilesh Daulatrao Lakhani vs. State of

Maharashtra2014(4)BomCR(Cri)757

Cr.P.C. S.204 Court can insist for process fee

in non cognizable offences

1Mt. Vithi and Anr. vs Tulsiram Maroti

and Crown 950CriLJ746

Cr.P.C. S.204 Detailed reasons unneccary for

issuance process

Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of

Delhi) and Anr.AIR2012SC1747

Cr.P.C. S.204 order is not interlocutory

Magistrate cannot review

Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of

Delhi) and Anr.AIR2012SC1747

Cr.P.C. S.204 Summons is a process issued

by court calling to apper

Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of

Delhi) and Anr.(2012)5SCC422

Cr.P.C. S.204 Taking cognizance explained

Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of

Delhi) and Anr.(2012)5SCC422

Cr.P.C. S.204 Taking cognizance means

becoming aware of and to take notice of

judicially

AIR1997SC3750State of BiharVs.Kadra

Pahadiya and Others

Cr.P.C. S.206 Notification for Special

Summons

R.R. ChariVs.State of

U.P.AIR1962SC1573

Cr.P.C. S.206 Use recommended by

Supreme Court

Raj Kishore PrasadVs.State of Bihar and

anotherAIR1996SC1931

Cr.P.C. S.209 After committal it cannot be

said that the Magistrate has jurisdiction over

the case

Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of

Delhi) and Anr.(2012)5SCC422

Cr.P.C. S.209 Committal under the new

Code is not an enquiry strictly speaking

Cr.P.C. S.209 Form Committal Warrant

Chhotan Sao and Anr.Vs.State of

BiharAIR2014SC907

Cr.P.C. S.209 Magistrate has a duty to secure

the Vicera Report etc before the committal

Raj Kishore Prasad Vs.State of Bihar and

anotherAIR1996SC1931

Cr.P.C. S.209 Magistrate has no power to

summon a new accused at the stage of

committal

State of Uttar PradeshVs.Lakshmi

Brahman and Anr.AIR1983SC439

Cr.P.C. S.209 Supplying copies under S.207

is judicial function and without its

compliance there can be no committal

Chhotan Sao and anr Vs. State of Bihar

AIR 2014 SC 907

Cr.P.C. S.209 Without obtaining the forensic

report committal by Magistrate is mechanical

and without applying mind

Pal @ Palla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

(2010)10SCC123

Cr.P.C. S.210 Clubbing of police case and

complaint case is not permissible when the

accused or the offences are not same

Delhi HC State vs Ram Kanwar

1984(1)Crimes1040

Cr.P.C. S.212(2) is an enabling provision

Ranchhodlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

AIR 1965 SC 1248

Cr.P.C. S.212, 219 and 220 are enabling

provisions for joinder of trials

C.B.I.Vs.Karimullah Osan Khan Cr.P.C. S.216 Charge may be altered any

time

Ranchhodlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

1965 AIR 1248

Cr.P.C. S.218 and 219 Charge IPC S.409

Consecutive sentence in separate trials

upheld

Manoharlal Lohe Vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh1981CriLJ1563

Cr.P.C. S.218 and S.409 IPC Accused never

objected joint trial and hence consenting

party and hence conviction upheld

Chudaman Narayan Patil vs State Of

Maharashtra on 22 September, 1967

Cr.P.C. S.218 and S.409 IPC Ranchodlal

follwed in

Birichh Bhuian and Ors.Vs.State of

BiharAIR1963SC1120

Cr.P.C. S.218 Difference between

irregularity and illegality in joinder of

charges

Messers Indian Sulphacid Industries

DELHI MANU-DE-2870-2011

Cr.P.C. S.219 and 220 are exception section

218 of Cr.P.C.

Ranchhodlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

1965 AIR 1248

Cr.P.C. S.219 Charge IPC S.409 Consecutive

sentence in separate trials upheld

State vs Ram Kanwar 1984 (1) Crimes

1040 Delhi

Cr.P.C. S.219 Separate charges and trials is

the normal rule

Aklak Ahmed Fakruddin PatelVs.State of

Maharashtra2011CriLJ126

Cr.P.C. S.220 Clubbing of police case for

S.498A and 306 and complaint case for

S.302 and 304B against same accused has

been upheld

Manivannan And S. Krishnamoorthy vs

P.R. Adhikesavan MANU-TN-0178-2008

Cr.P.C. S.220 Complainant filed separate

cases of S.420 IPC and S.138 NI Act Held

separate trials were not improper

Narinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. vs.Union

of India and ors AIR2001SC3810

Cr.P.C. S.220 Each depositors case is

individual offence

Nova Vision Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and

Anr.Vs.State and Anr.2011CriLJ868

Cr.P.C. S.220 For separate cheque separate

trial has been justified

Praveen vs State Of Maharashtra 2001

CriLJ 3417

Cr.P.C. S.220 Same transaction Kidnapping

from Nagpur Rape in Jabalpur Either Court

can try

Praveen vs State Of Maharashtra 2001

CriLJ 3417

Cr.P.C. S.220 Same transaction

Nova Vision Electronics Pvt.Ltd and anr

Vs. State and anr MANU-DE-4089-2009

Cr.P.C. S.220 Separate cheques seperate

trials

K. Prema S. Rao Vs.Yadla Srinivasa Rao

AIR2003SC11

Cr.P.C. S.221 Convicted for S.306 along

with S.498A though charged with S.304B

and 498A

Samadhan Baburao Khakare and

Ors.Vs.The State of Maharashtra and

Ors.1995(2)MhLj464

Cr.P.C. S.222(2) Major and the minor

offences must be cognate offences having

main ingredients in common.

Ramesh Singh State Of Maharashtra 1993

CriLJ 2743

Cr.P.C. S.222(2) Police Act S.124 conviction

upheld though the charge was under S.413 of

IPC

Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad YadavVs.State

through C.B.IAIR2003SC3838

Cr.P.C. S.223 On the application of accused

the Magistrate may amalgamate cases. He

can read one case evidence in the other

Banti @ GudduVs.State of Madhya

PradeshAIR2004SC261

Cr.P.C. S.226 and 231 APP can choose and

pick his witnesses

(Satish Mehra (1996) 9 SCC 766

Overruled)-State Of Orissa vs Debendra

Nath Padhi A.I.R. 2005 SCC 369

Cr.P.C. S.226 Anticipatory bail in UP upheld

by SC

Dinesh Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

dd on_ 07.07.2014 MANU-SC-0587-2014

Cr.P.C. S.227 and 239 Material produced by

accused not to be considered

Union of India (UOI)Vs.Prafulla Kumar

Samal and Anr.AIR1979SC366

Cr.P.C. S.227 Charge of an offence not

mentioned in charge sheet can be framed

State Of Karnataka vs Chetan Tayal Cr.P.C. S.227 Discharge Test

V. C. Shukla vs State Through C.B.I AIR

1980 SC AIR

Cr.P.C. S.227 Documents produced by

accused cannot be considered at the time of

charge

Niranjan Singh Karan Singh Vs. Jitendra

Bhimraj Bijje, AIR 1990 SC 1962

Cr.P.C. S.227 Framing Charge is

Interlocutory order

Satish Mehra (1996) 9 SCC 766 Overruled

in State Of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi

A.I.R. 2005 SCC 369

Cr.P.C. S.227 Marshalling of evidence not

required at the stage of Charge

Willie (William) SlaneyVs.The State of

Madhya PradeshAIR1956SC116

Cr.P.C. S.227 Material of accused not to be

considered

M. Joy Varghese Cr.P.C. S.227 Omission to frame charge of

s.34 IPC not fatal

Smt. Snehalata MondalVs.State of West

Bengal(2008)1CALLT297(HC)

Cr.P.C. S.227 Though Trial cannot consider

documents of accused High Court can

consider under S.482

State of BombayVs.Mohamadh

KhanAIR1960Bom150

Cr.P.C. S.229 Subsequent plea of guilty

accepted

Rohtash KumarVs.State of

Haryana(2013)14SCC434

Cr.P.C. S.231 Additional witness for

prosecution can be allowed

Ram Deo Chauhanvs.State of Assam

(2001)5SCC714

Cr.P.C. S.231 and Evi Act S.114 Prosecution

is not bound to examine all listed witnesses

Narpal Singh & Others vs State Of

Haryana AIR 1977 SC 1066

Cr.P.C. S.235(2) Accused upon conviction

can be sent to jail until hearing on sentence

Modilal Kaluram Kachhara And Etc. vs

State Of Maharashtra 1988 CriLJ__1901__

Cr.P.C. S.235(2) To hear on sentence de

novo trial not necessary

(Satish Mehra (1996) 9 SCC 766

Overruled)-State Of Orissa vs Debendra

Nath Padhi A.I.R. 2005 SCC 369

Cr.P.C. S.239 and 240 Transfer application

Rejected Complaint Against Judge

Cr.P.C. S.239 Discharged from S.498A and

506

Kanti Bhadra Shah and Anr. Vs.The State

of West BengalAIR2000SC522

Cr.P.C. S.239 Magistrate need not write

order for framing charge but has to write

order for discharge

M. Joy Varghese Vs The State ANU-TN-

0365-2011

Cr.P.C. S.239 Under S.482 no bar to the

High Court to consider the documents

produced by accused

Dattatraya Dagduji Borkute 1996 CriLJ987 Cr.P.C. S.242(2) and 254(2) and 87 If

warrant is not applied for, it is Court's

discretion to issue warrant to the absent

witness

ILR 1970(1) Del287 Cr.P.C. S.244 Accused has right to cross

examine in EBC

Sunil Mehta and Anr.Vs.State of Gujarat

and Anr.2013(2)BomCR(Cri)335

Cr.P.C. S.244 Statements of S.202 are not

EBC

1983 Mah.L.J.494 Cr.P.C. S.244 Witness in EBC not available

for cross after charge His evidence may be

considered

Cricket Association of Bengal and ors Vs.

State of West Bengal and ors. AIR 1971

SC 1971

Cr.P.C. S.245(2) Complaint can be dismissed

before charge

Luis De Piedade Lobo Vs.Mahadev

Vishwanath Parulekar1984CriLJ513

Cr.P.C. S.245(2) Opportunity to adduce EBC

should be given to the Complaint

Hansraj Harjiwan Bhate and

Ors.Vs.EmperorAIR1940Nag390

Cr.P.C. S.246 Additional witnesses allowed

Absence of any provision on particular

matter does not mean that there is no such

power in criminal court

Gurmukh Singh and Ors. vs. The State of

Punjab (1972)4SCC805

Cr.P.C. S.248(2) Conviction not bad for

failure to adopt procedure applicable to

complaint-warrant case

Sagunabai Lahanu Shende Vs.Patru Goma

Lengure and others1979MhLJ18

Cr.P.C. S.249 cannot be invoked after charge

DB In Re_ Jamnabai Meghji

AIR1934Bom130

Cr.P.C. S.249 Courts practice of posting case

for actual hearing and simple adjournment

discussed by

Narayandas Narayandas Gulabchand

Agrawal v. Rakesh Kumar Nem Kumar

Porwal 1996 (2) Mh.L.J. 463

Cr.P.C. S.249 Magistrate is not empowered

to restore a complaint

Dagdu Govindshet WaniVs.Punja Vedu

WaniAIR1937Bom55

Cr.P.C. S.250 and 350 Old Act For these

sections trial commences in warrant case

even before charge

IND Synergy Ltd.Vs.Goyal MG Gases Pvt.

Ltd.III(2014)BC433(Del)

Cr.P.C. S.251 Adalat Prasad case would not

come in way for objection to jurisdiction

Jhantu DasVs.State of

Tripura(2007)2GLR443

Cr.P.C. S.251 If the admitted facts do not

amount to offence accused can not be

convicted

Girraj Prasad MeenaVs.State of Rajasthan

and Ors 2013 (12) SCALE 275

Cr.P.C. S.252 Plead guilty for lessor offences

set aside as informant had no opportunity to

apply for adding charges or accused

Shri Sandeep Indravadan SagarVs.State of

Maharashtra and others dd on 10.01.2013

Cr.P.C. S.252 Rubber stamp used for

recording plea of accused Court upheld the

order

State of MaharashtraVs.Maruti Dadu

Kamble1988MhLJ49

Cr.P.C. S.255 Magistrate should issue

summons on request of the prosecution, but

can refuse to adjourn if no efforts taken to

serve the summons

Jethalal GirdharlalVs.State of

Gujarat(1984)2GLR964

Cr.P.C. S.255(2) and Prohibition Act

S.66(1)(b) Hearing on sentence gives

accused to show special reason for less than

minimum punishment

Jethalal GirdharlalVs.State of Gujarat

MANU-GJ-0206-1984

Cr.P.C. S.255(2) and S.66(1)(b) Magistrate

has to hear the accused on sentence

In Re_ Wasudeo Narayan Phadnis

AIR1950Bom10 (DB)

Cr.P.C. S.256 (Do not follow this authority)

Magistrate can restore the complaint and

continue from the last stage

Narayandas Gulabchand Agrawal 1996-2-

MhLj463

Cr.P.C. S.256 and 249 Bombay says

Magistrate has no jurisdiction to restore a

dismissed complaint

Om Gayatri and company Vs. State of

Maharashtra 2006 Cr.L.J.601

Cr.P.C. S.256 Bombay No revision lies

against order under section

Associated Cement Co. Ltd vs Keshvanand

AIR1998SC596

Cr.P.C. S.256 Court should not insist for

presence of particular person should not

dismiss if evidence already recorded the

Harishchandra @ Sunil Rajaram Rasker

Vs.Kantilal Virchand Vora &

another1998CriLJ3754

Cr.P.C. S.256 Magistrate cannot restore

complaint

Madankumar Dharamchand Jain and

Anr.Vs.State of Maharashtra and

Anr.1983(1)BomCR416

Cr.P.C. S.256 Magistrate has no power to

recall the dismissal order

Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya and Anr.Vs.S.N.

Thakur and Anr.AIR1986SC1440

Cr.P.C. S.256 Magistrate not empowered to

restore dismissed complaint

S. Rama KrishnaVs.S. Rami

ReddyAIR2008SC2066

Cr.P.C. S.256(1) Magistrate has to dismiss

complaint unless decided to adjourn for some

cause

State of MaharashtraVs.Maruti Dadu

Kamble1988MhLJ49

Cr.P.C. S.258 After summons only

Magistrate can close case

Pramatha Nath MukherjeeVs.The State of

West BengalAIR1960SC810

Cr.P.C. S.259 After discharging from

warrant case trying summons case under

chapter 20 is valid

Zafar and othersVs.State of

U.P.1968AWR(H.C.)38281

Cr.P.C. S.263 and 264 of old Cr.P.C Notes of

evidence when need not be retained

Girraj Prasad MeenaVs.State of Rajasthan

and Ors.

Cr.P.C. S.265 Plea bargaining in haste

Guerrero Lugo Elvia GrisselVs.The State

of Maharashtra2012CriLJ1136

Cr.P.C. S.265A Notification of the excluded

Acts

Madras HC

State_By_vs_K.N.Nehru_on_3_November,

_2011-1

Cr.P.C. S.265E Court has no discretion to

award sentence other than one-fourth of the

punishment

Ramesh Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar

And Ors. on 17 December, 1986

Cr.P.C. S.267 Formal arrest of the accused in

jail

State of Maharashtra Vs.Yadav Natthuji

Kohachade2000CriLJ959

Cr.P.C. S.267 Non production of prisoners

State of Maharashtra and P.C. SinghVs.Dr.

Praful B. Desai and Anr.AIR2003SC2053

Cr.P.C. S.267 Procedure of Production

warrant

The State of Maharashtra Vs.Bhaurao

Doma Udan and Others1996(1)MhLj214

Cr.P.C. S.273 Evidence on commission

through VC allowed in Criminal cases

Abdul

RahmanVs.Emperor1927(29)BOMLR813

Cr.P.C. S.277 Marathi deposition will prevail

over English

Mir Mohd. Omar and Ors.vs.State of West

BengalAIR1989SC1785

Cr.P.C. S.278 Not reding over deposition but

making available for his reading was

sufficient

Trial not vitiated Shivnarayan

KabraVs.The State of

MadrasAIR1967SC986

Cr.P.C. S.278 Object is to ensure accuracy of

evidence and to give witness concerned

opportunity to point out mistakes

The State Of Maharashtra vs Manik Mohan

Gaikwad on 26 November, 2008

Cr.P.C. S.279 Evidence's language unknown

to accused, but known to advocates.

Rajesh Kumar and Anr.Vs.State Govt. of

NCT of Delhi (2008)4SCC493

Cr.P.C. S.291A Test Identification Parade

and purpose No provision in Cr.P.C. which

obliges investigation agency to hold

identification parade

Kodadi Srinivasa Lingam and Ors.Vs.State

of A.P.2001CriLJ602 A.P

Cr.P.C. S.293(1) Not obligatory that the

expert on the scientific issue of the chemical

examination of substance, should be made to

depose in proceedings before Court

Guwahati Sub-Divisional Market

CommitteeVs.Suresh

Sikaria2013(4)GLT486

Cr.P.C. S.294 Admitted documents can be

read in evidence

Himachal Pradesh AdministrationVs.Om

PrakashAIR1972SC975

Cr.P.C. S.294 application by accused shall be

considered only statement of S.313

State of Punjab vs. Naib

DinAIR2001SC3955

Cr.P.C. S.294 Proof without examining the

expert

Constitution Bench Dharam Pal and

Ors.Vs.State of Haryana and Anr.MANU-

SC-0720-2013

Cr.P.C. S.296 What is formal evidence which

can be taken on affidavit is explained

Jayendra Vishnu ThakurVs.State of

Maharahstra and Anr.(2009)7SCC104

Cr.P.C. S.299 and 193 After committal

Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to summon

accused named in column no.2

Jayendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of

Maharahstra and Anr. (2009)7SCC104(1

Cr.P.C. S.299 is applicable when the accused

intentionally makes inaccessable and not

merely when it is shown that it is not

possible to trace him

Nirmal Singh Vs.State of

HaryanaAIR2000SC1416

Cr.P.C. S.299 On surrender of accused

attachment to be vacated )

Smt. Urmila SahuVs.State of

Orissa1998CriLJ1372 Orissa

Cr.P.C. S.299 second part is exceptionto S.33

of Evidence Act

Central Bureau of InvestigationVs.Abu

Salem Ansari and Anr.(2011)4SCC426

Cr.P.C. S.299 Unless common evidence is

recorded the evidence against the tried

accused cannot be read against absconding

accused

Monica BediVs.State of

A.P.(2011)1SCC284

Cr.P.C. S.299(1) will be applicable if any of

its conditions are satisfied

Thomas DanaVs.The State of

PunjabAIR1959SC375

Cr.P.C. S.300 Double jeopardy To operate as

a bar the second prosecution and the

consequential punishment thereunder, must

be for 'the same offence

Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai PatelVs.State

of Gujarat and Anr.AIR2012SC2844

Cr.P.C. S.300 Double Jeopardy's 3 requisites

State of Karnataka through CBIVs.C.

NagarajaswamyAIR2005SC4308

Cr.P.C. S.300 No Double Jeopardy in

Dishonor of Cheque case even if there was a

case under S.420 IPC

Baban DaudVs.EmperorAIR1915Bom254 Cr.P.C. S.300 P.C. Act S.19 Fresh trial not

barred when the Court had no jurisdiction to

take cognizance due to invaid sanction

Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir

KasabVs.State of

MaharashtraAIR2012SC3565

Cr.P.C. S.301 Trial on Sunday without legal

aid was setaside

Sitaram SaoVs.State of

JharkhandAIR2008SC391

Cr.P.C. S.302 Free legal aid should be

provided from the stage of remand

Sitaram SaoVs.State of

JharkhandAIR2008SC391

Cr.P.C. S.306 Aprover relied

Narayan Chetanram ChaudharyVs.State of

MaharashtraAIR2000SC3352

Cr.P.C. S.306 Aprover was relied

Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Anr.

Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2000 SC

3352

Cr.P.C. S.306 Pardon is not right Aapplicable

without committal 307 applicable after

committal.doc

Narayan Chetanram ChaudharyVs.State of

MaharashtraAIR2000SC3352

Cr.P.C. S.306(1) is invocable at

precommitmentS.307 is invocable at post-

commitment while state

Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar Vs.

State of Maharashtra (2009)6SCC498

Cr.P.C. S.306(1) Pardon is not right

Aapplicable without committal 307

applicable after committal.doc

State of Himachal PradeshVs.Surinder

Mohan And OthersAIR2000SC1862

Cr.P.C. S.306(1) Pardon Procedure

A. DeivendranVs.State of

T.N.AIR1998SC2821

Cr.P.C. S.306(4) Accused has no right of

cross examination of the approver

Asokan L.S.Vs.State of

Kerala2005CriLJ3848

Cr.P.C. S.306(4)(a) Examination of approver

is mandatory if pardon tendered before

committal but not mandatory if tendered by

sessions court after commital

The State of MaharashtraVs.Shanti Prasad

Jain1978MhLJ227

Cr.P.C. S.306(4)(a) Statement of approver is

not admissibleunder S.33 Evi Act

Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary &

Anr.Vs.State of

MaharashtraAIR2000SC3352

Cr.P.C. S.306(5) CJM and ACJM and CMM

and ACMM have equal jurisdiction

Mrinal Das and Ors.Vs.The State of

TripuraAIR2011SC3753

Cr.P.C. S.307 After committal the approver

need not be examined twice

Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and

Anr.Vs.State of

MaharashtraAIR2000SC3352

Cr.P.C. S.307 is applicable after committal

Jasbir Singhvs. Vipin Kumar Jaggi and

Ors.AIR2001SC2734

Cr.P.C. S.307 is invocable at post-

commitment while S.306 is invocable at

precommitment state

P. Ramachandra RaoVs.State of

KarnatakaAIR2002SC1856

Cr.P.C. S.307 pardon is by Court NDPS Act

S.64 is by executive Later overrides

Thana SinghVs.Central Bureau of

Narcotics2013CriLJ1262 circulated in

Pune

Cr.P.C. S.309 Common Cause and Rajdeo

Sharma Cases are overruled

Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab dd in

2012

Cr.P.C. S.309 Criminal Trials Directions for

day to day trials

Abdul Rehman Antulay etc. etc.Vs.R.S.

Nayak and another etc.

etc.AIR1992SC1701

Cr.P.C. S.309 Directions given not to grant

adjournments casually

N.G. Dastanevs.Shrikant S. Shivde and

Anr.AIR2001SC2028

Cr.P.C. S.309 It is neither permissible nor

possible nor desirable to lay down an outer

limit of time

Bipin Shantilal PanchalVs.State of Gujarat

and Anr.AIR2001SC1158

Cr.P.C. S.309 Magistrate new spared from

adverse remarks for allowing Advocates

misconduct in seeking adjournment

Abdul Rehman Antulay etc. etc.Vs.R.S.

Nayak and another etc.

etc.AIR1992SC1701

Cr.P.C. S.309 Mark the objected document

tentatively as an exhibit

Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj Nath vs State of

Assam AIR2001SC2231

Cr.P.C. S.309 Neither permissible nor

possible nor desirable to lay down an outer

limit of time

Hussainara Khatoon and Ors.Vs.Home

Secretary, State of Bihar,

PatnaAIR1979SC1360

Cr.P.C. S.309 On conviction accused to be

taken into custody pending punishment

P. Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka

AIR2002SC1856

Cr.P.C. S.309 Speedy trial is of the essence

of criminal justice

P. Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka

AIR2002SC1856

Cr.P.C. S.309 Supreme Court cannot fix time

for conclusion of trials

Mohd. KhalidVs.State of West

Bengal(2002)7SCC334

Cr.P.C. S.309 Time cannot be fixed by

Supreme Court for conclusion of trials

State of U.P. vs.Shambhu Nath Singh &

Ors.AIR2001SC1403

Cr.P.C. S.309 Unnecessary adjournments

give a scope for a grievance that accused

persons get a time to get over the witnesses

Sasi ThomasVs.State and

Ors.(2006)12SCC421

Cr.P.C. S.309 When witnesses are present

and accused causes adjournment Court can

remand accused or direct payment of

expenses present

In Re_ Kesava Pillai and Anr.

AIR1929Mad837

Cr.P.C. S.311 Court can order further

investigation

Nageshwar Shri Krishna GhobeVs.State of

MaharashtraAIR1973SC165

Cr.P.C. S.311 Just decision does not

necessarily mean a decision in favour of

defence

Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan,Vs.Union

Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli

2003BomCR(Cri)1103

Cr.P.C. S.311 Parties cannot control the

Court's discretion to have any additional

evidence

Rajendra Prasad Vs.The Narcotic

CellAIR1999SC2292

Cr.P.C. S.311 Recall of witness allowed

Iddar and Ors.Vs.Aabida and

Anr.AIR2007SC3029

Cr.P.C. S.311 The power of the Court was

plenary to summon or even recall any

witness at any stage of the case

Rajendra Prasad vs The Narcotic Cell

Through Its AIR 1999 SC 2292

Cr.P.C. S.311 to be invoked Essential for just

decision

Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, Vs. Union

Territory Of Dadra And Nagar, 2004 CriLJ

150

Cr.P.C. S.311 What is Lacuna. No party in a

trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors

Laxman alias Laxmayya Vs.The State of

Maharashtra 2012 Cri.L.J. 2826

Cr.P.C. S.311 Witness recalled to depose as

they turned hostile previously due to threats

by the accused

Dr. Sunil Clifford DanielVs.State of

Punjab2012CriLJ4657 Prosecution

Cr.P.C. S.313 Accused be informed that he

can decline to give answers and his

inculpatory statements may be taken into

consideration

Basavaraj R. Patil and OthersVs.State of

Karnataka and OthersAIR2000SC3214

Cr.P.C. S.313 AND PC Act Failure of

accused to offer appropriate explanation or

giving false answer may be counted as

providing a missing link

State of MaharashtraVs.Maruti Dadu

Kamble1988MhLJ49

Cr.P.C. S.313 Counsel cannot be examined

Jethalal GirdharlalVs.State of

Gujarat(1984)2GLR964

Cr.P.C. S.313 Statement is not evidence

Satyavir Singh RathiVs.State thr.

C.B.I.AIR2011SC1748

In Re_ Kannammal alias Maunammal

92Ind. Cas.695

Cr.P.C. S.313(1)(b) Accused should be

warned

Basavaraj R. Patil and OthersVs.State of

Karnataka and

OthersAIR2000SC3214(3JJs)

Cr.P.C. S.313(1)(b) Advocate cannot be

examined but questionire for accused can be

given

Basavaraj R. Patil and OthersVs.State of

Karnataka and OthersAIR2000SC3214

Cr.P.C. S.313(1)(b) Counsel cannot be

examined

Satyavir Singh RathiVs.State thr.

C.B.I.AIR2011SC1748

Cr.P.C. S.313(1)(b) Statement is not

evidence

Messers Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs

Messers Bhiwani Denim and Apparels

Ltd.AIR2001SC3625

Cr.P.C. S.317 Personal exemption when can

be granted

Hardeep Singh etc. Vs.State of Punjab and

Ors. etc. etc.2014(1)SCALE241

Cr.P.C. S.319 A person discharged can be

arraigned again as accused after an inquiry as

contemplated by Section 300(5) and 398

(5JJs)

Bholu RamVs.State of Punjab and

Anr.2008 Cri.L.J. 4576 SC

Cr.P.C. S.319 Accused can apply to

Magistrate

Rakesh and Anr.vs.State of

HaryanaAIR2001SC2521

Cr.P.C. S.319 Accused named in FIR but

excluded police can be summoned even

without cross exam of the witness

Hardeep Singh etc. etc.Vs.State of Punjab

and Ors. etc. etc.2014(1)SCALE241

Cr.P.C. S.319

Hardeep Singh etc. Vs.State of Punjab and

Ors. AIR2014SC1400

Cr.P.C. S.319 Larger Bench explained A

person discharged can be arraigned again as

accused after an inquiry as contemplated by

Section 300(5) and 398 (5JJs)

Hardeep Singh etc. etc.Vs.State of Punjab

and Ors. etc. etc.AIR2014SC1400

Cr.P.C. S.319 Larger Bench explained when

can section 319 be resorted

Dr. S.S. KhannaVsChief Secretary, Patna

and Anr.AIR1983SC595(2Judges)

Cr.P.C. S.319 Magistrate can proceed against

an accused whom the Magistrate refused to

summon

Uma Shankar Vs.State of Bihar and

Anr.(2010)9SCC479

Cr.P.C. S.319 Magistrate can take

cognizance against the accused named in FIR

but omitted in the charge sheet

Kishori Singh and Ors.Vs.State of Bihar

and Anr. AIR2000SC3725

Cr.P.C. S.319 Magistrate cannot issue

process to FIR named but chargesheet

unnamed accused at committal stage (Two

Judges in)

Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and

AnrAIR2007SC2786

Cr.P.C. S.319 Purpose of this power is

explained

2012 STPL(Web) 521 SC Cr.P.C. S.320 and 482 FIR quashing When

can the HC on compromise

Bom FB Abasaheb Yadav Honmane

Vs.The State of Maharashtra2008 2

MhLj856

Cr.P.C. S.320 At any stage permissible

Hirabhai Jhaverbhai vs State Of Gujarat &

Ors

Cr.P.C. S.320 IPC S.324 offence before

amendment is compundable

Rajesh Rajesh Kannan vs A.K. Murthy and

Ors.2009-2-UC879

Cr.P.C. S.320 Non-compoundable case unfit

for conciliation SC said

Rajesh Rajesh Kannan vs A.K. Murthy and

Ors.2009-2-UC879

Cr.P.C. S.320 Non-compoundable case unfit

for mediation SC said

Hirabhai JhaverbhaiVs.State of Gujarat

and Ors.AIR2010SC2321

Cr.P.C. S.320 Offence of S.324 IPC prior to

amendment is compoundable

Rameshchandra J. ThakkarVs.Assandas

Parmanand Jhaveri, State of

MaharashtraAIR1973SC84

Cr.P.C. S.320 Partly compounding is not

permissible

Rajinder SinghVs.State (Delhi

Administration)AIR1980SC1200

Cr.P.C. S.320 Partly compounding was

maintained without discussion on validity

Gian SinghVs.State of Punjab and

Anr.(2010)15SCC118

Cr.P.C. S.320 Referring to Larger Bench as

S.420 IPC is compoundable and S.120B is

non compoundable

Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Vs.The State of

Maharashtra2008 2 MhLj856

Cr.P.C. S.320 Under S.482 non-

compoundable offence's FIR can be quashed

Bom FB

Gian SinghVs.State of Punjab and

Anr.(2012)10SCC303

Cr.P.C. S.320 When can the F.I.R. be

quashed guidelines given in

Sheonandan PaswanVs.State of Bihar and

Ors.AIR1987SC877

Cr.P.C. S.321 Grounds for seeking Courts

consent for withdrawal

Sheonandan PaswanVs.State of Bihar and

Ors.AIR1987SC877

Cr.P.C. S.321 Withdrawal permission

principles discussed in

A.P. High Court Cr.P.C. S.323 and 325 Magistrate shall not

commit the case merely for severe

punishment

Sudhir and ors. etc.vs.State of M.P.

etc.AIR2001SC826

Cr.P.C. S.323 Sessions Judge has power to

try any offence Cross cases should be tried

by him

Khoda Bux MalVs.Ohadali

MalAIR1949Cal308

Cr.P.C. S.325 Magistrate has to write an

order but not judgment

II Addl. Judicial First Class

MagistrateVs.State of A.P.2005CriLJ1168

DB

Cr.P.C. S.325 When Magistrate cannot

exceed the limit of S.29 for want of special

provision he has to resort to S.325 and not

323

RajagopalVs.Forest Range

Officer2012(1)CTC639

Cr.P.C. S.325(1) Magistrate has to record

finding of guity and CJM cannot send back

case.

RajagopalVs.Forest Range

Officer2012(1)CTC639

Cr.P.C. S.325(1) Magistrate has to record

finding of guity.

NageshVs.State of

Karnataka1990CriLJ2234

Cr.P.C. S.325(1) Magistrate to record finding

and then refer to CJM

Jaikishan Kanjiwani Vs Kumar Matching

Centre2011CriLJ134

Cr.P.C. S.326 and N.I. Act S.138 Evidence

and not substance of evidence is recorded

Ramilaben Trikamlal ShahTube and Allied

Products and others

Cr.P.C. S.326 and N.I. Act S.138 Evidence

on affidavit followed by cross. De novo not

required

Navinchandra Hiralal Desai Cr.P.C. S.326 and N.I. Act S.138 In

summary trial only substance and not entire

sentence is recorded

Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali 2012 CriLJ

4537

Cr.P.C. S.326 Denovo Trial In an extremely

serious case of exceptional nature it would

occasion in failure of justice if Prosecution is

not taken to logical conclusion

Ranbir Yadav Vs State of Bihar AIR 1995

SC 1219

Cr.P.C. S.326 Discretion given to court to

read previous evidence

Emperor Vs. Maung Ragoon HC relies on

Bombay

Cr.P.C. S.326

Pratibha Pandurang Salvi Vs. State of

Maharashtra 2010CriLJ730

Cr.P.C. S.326 Once the Magistrate used the

discretion to try summarily, on his transfer it

should be denovo

Trial Mukesh and etc.Vs.State of

Rajasthan1998CriLJ2439

Cr.P.C. S.326 Rajastan HC in EC Act case

Summary

EmperorDurgaprasad Chunnilal and

Ors.AIR 1940 Nag 239

Cr.P.C. S.326 Substance of evidence can be

acted upon

Tippanna Koutya Mannavaddar Bombay

DB AIR1934Bom157

Cr.P.C. S.326 Summary Trials Notes

Procedure

MunicipalityNagindas Maganlal AIR 1953

Bom 29

Cr.P.C. S.326 Surat Borough

J.V. Baharuni vs. State of Gujarat (2014)

10 SCC 494

Cr.P.C. S.326(3) and NI Act S.138 and 142

If the evidence was not recorded summarily

but fully then no need of denovo

Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah and

Anr.Vs.Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal and

Anr.AIR2011SC3076

Cr.P.C. S.326(3) and S.138 NI Act Pursis of

accused would not make legal to read

evidence recorded by previous Magistrate

Shyambahadur Purshottam SharmaVs.Shri.

Sudhakar Narshu PoojaryMANU-MH-

1393-2013

Cr.P.C. S.326(3) Denovo Trial not necessary

Cr.P.C. S.326(3) Justice Mridula Bhatkar's

judgment on summary trial

K. JayachandranVsO. Nargeese and

Anr.1987CriLJ1997

Cr.P.C. S.326(3) No need of denovo trial

Abdul Sukkur Barbhuiya Vs. the State of

Assam and others, Gauhati HC dd

24.01.2012 CrlRevP1922011

Cr.P.C. S.326(3) Sessions Court to record

evidence denovo

Reserve Bank Employees Association,

NagpurVs.State of Maharashtra and

Ors.AIR1969Bom199

Cr.P.C. S.326(3) Succeeding Judge can

proceed (Case under old CR.P.C.)

State of Punjab Vs.Gurmit Singh and

Others AIR1 996 SC 1393

Cr.P.C. S.327 In camera proceeding

directions

Sakshi Vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR

2004 SC 3566

Cr.P.C. S.327 In camera trial and not to

disclose the name of the victim

The State of MaharashtraVs.Subhashsing

Shalikramsingh

Raghuwanshi1995(1)MhLj358

Cr.P.C. S.334 Acquittal case Course to be

adopted while acquitting on insanity ground

Ms. Leena Balkrishna NairVs.The State of

Maharashtra2010CriLJ3392

Cr.P.C. S.338 and IPC S.84 Accused was

acquitted and released under section 338 of

Cr.P.C.

State of MaharashtraVs.Sukhdeo Singh

and anotherAIR1992SC2100

Cr.P.C. S.342 (3) Answers given by accused

may be taken into consideration at enquiry or

trial

D.K. Basu Vs.State of West

BengalAIR1997SC610

Cr.P.C. S.342 Compensation to the victim

Arun Paswan, S.I.Vs.State of Bihar and

Ors.JT2003(10)SC459

Cr.P.C. S.345 Contempt of Court by police

officer

The Superintendent of PoliceVs.The

Judicial Magistrate Court,

CheyyarIV(2015)CCR502(Mad.)

Cr.P.C. S.349 and 91 Notice should be issued

before taking action

Dayal Singh and Ors.Vs.State of

UttaranchalAIR2012SC3046

Cr.P.C. S.353 Court is competent to direct

departmental action aginst erring officers

Satya NarainVs.State of

Rajasthan1987WLN(UC) Raj 458

Cr.P.C. S.353 Judgment pronounced in

absence of accused was upheld as he was

present during the trial

A.T. PrakashanVs.The Excise Inspector

and Anr.2014ALLMR(Cri)1945

Cr.P.C. S.353 Misquoting of the Section or

misapplying the provisions has caused no

prejudice Hence conviction maintained

State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai Supreme

(2014)5SCC108

Cr.P.C. S.354 Acquittal case A finding needs

to be recorded in each acquittal case whether

the lapse was innocent or blameworthy

State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai Supreme

Court jjment dated 07.01.2014

Cr.P.C. S.354 Acquittal case A finding needs

to be recorded in each acquittal case whether

the lapse was innocent or blameworthy

Complainant GaneshaVs.Sharanappa and

anr.AIR2014SC1198

Cr.P.C. S.354 and 154 The person who

lodges the FIR be called the Informant and

not the

Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy

JosephVs.State of

Maharashtra(2014)4SCC69

Cr.P.C. S.354(3) Court has to discharge its

constitutional obligations and honour

legislative policy by awarding appropriate

sentence, that is will of people

2012_STPL(Web)_338_SC R.MOHAN

VS VIJAY KUMAR

Cr.P.C. S.357 and S.138 NI Act

Compensation default sentence

R. VijayanVs.Baby and

Anr.AIR2012SC528

Cr.P.C. S.357 Compensation in S.138 N.I.

Act cases

R. VijayanVs.Baby and

Anr.AIR2012SC528

Cr.P.C. S.357 Compensation in S.138 N.I.

Act cases should include costs and loss

Ankush Shivaji GaikwadVs.State of

MaharashtraAIR2013 SC 2454

Cr.P.C. S.357 Every Courts Mandatory duty

to consider compensation

Ram Pal Vs. T.S. Thakur and Adarsh

Kumar Goes JT2015(2)SC496

Cr.P.C. S.357 State to compensation in

S.304A IPC where accused is unable to pay

R. MohanVs.A.K. Vijaya

Kumar2012CriLJ3953

Cr.P.C. S.357(3) (Simple) Imprisonment in

default of compensation was justified

Dilip S. DhanukarVs.Kotak Mahindra Co.

Ltd. and Anr.MANU-SC-8289-2007

Cr.P.C. S.357(3) Compensation to be less

than recoverable in civil court

K.A. Abbas H.S.A.Vs.Sabu Joseph and

Anr.(2010)6SCC230

Cr.P.C. S.357(3) Default sentence of

compensation is legal

2012_STPL(Web)_338_SC Cr.P.C. S.357(3) jail if compensation is

unpaid explained

Sunil alias Pona Tolaram Pore (Varma)

Vs. State of Maharashtra

Cr.P.C. S.360 not applicable to Maharashtra

Probation not available for S.326 IPC

Chandreshwar SharmaVs.State of

Bihar(2000)9SCC245

Cr.P.C. S.361 Court shall give reasons for

denial of benefit of probation

Eliamma and Anr.Vs.State of

Karnataka(2009)11SCC42

Cr.P.C. S.361 Mandatory to give reasons

State of PunjabVs.Prem Sagar and

Ors.2008CriLJ3533

Cr.P.C. S.361 Sentence would depend on

many factors

Rupam Pralhad Bhartiya Vs. State of

Maharashtra and Anr.MANU-MH-1005-

2011

Cr.P.C. S.361 Special Reasons to be given

for not granting probation HC increased fine

to one lakh

State of PunjabVs.Davinder Pal Singh

Bhullar and Ors

Cr.P.C. S.362 High Court has no power

under S.482 to review

Minu Kumari and Anr.Vs.The State of

Bihar and Ors.AIR2006SC1937

Cr.P.C. S.362 Magistrate can drop

proceeding against against whom process

was issued by mistake

Mohd. Chaman Vs.State (N.C.T. of Delhi)

2001CriLJ725

Cr.P.C. S.366 propositions to be kept in mind

for determination of question of death

sentence

In Re_ The Additional District Judge-cum-

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam

2003-1-LW(Crl)77

Cr.P.C. S.374 and 9 Additional Sessions

Judge can hear an appeal from Assistant

Sessions Judge if punishment was less than 7

years

State of MP V Bacchudas alias Balram and

Ors - AIR2007SC1236

Cr.P.C. S.374 Appeallate Court duties

Dilip S. DhanukarVs.Kotak Mahindra Co.

Ltd. and Anr.MANU-SC-8289-2007

Cr.P.C. S.374 Right of appeal against

conviction cannot be curtailed But appellate

court can impose condition for suspending

sentence

Messers Pioneer Castings and another Vs

Employees State Insurance Corporation

Cr.P.C. S.374(2) Appeal lies to Sessions

Court and not HC

Notes Cr.P.C. S.374(2) Appeal to High Court when

lies

Sudhir Niranjan Chakre Vs.Rajesh Ramdas

Wankhade2014ALLMR(Cri)4624

Cr.P.C. S.374(4) and 2(wa) and

407(1)(c)(iv)_ Victim can appeal to Sessions

Court and State to High Court against

acquittal Parties can pray high court to

transfer

The State of MaharashtraVs.Hanmant

Prabhakar Waidande and Ors.MANU-MH-

0868-2006

Cr.P.C. S.378 Against acquittal appeal lies to

sessions court in state case to high court in

complaint case

State (Delhi

Administration)vs.DharampalAIR2001SC2

924

Cr.P.C. S.378 Limitation is 90 days for

Appeal by complainant to HC against

acquittal in Food Act case

EmperorVs.Lakshman Chavji

NarangikarAIR1931Bom313

Cr.P.C. S.381 Assistant and Additional

Sessions Judges exercise jurisdiction of

Sessions Court

K.S. PandurangaVs.State of

KarnatakaAIR2013SC2164

Cr.P.C. S.384 to 386 Appeal once admitted -

has to be decided on merits even in absence

of accused

Kishori LalVs.Rupa and

Ors.(2004)7SCC638

Cr.P.C. S.389 Appellate Court shall consider

nature of allegations etc for granting bail

State of PunjabVs.Deepak

MattuAIR2008SC35

Cr.P.C. S.389 High court recalled its order

Kishori LalVs.Rupa and

Ors.(2004)7SCC638

Cr.P.C. S.389(1) Appellate Court shall

consider nature of allegations etc for granting

bail

Mayuram Subramanian

SrinivasanVs.C.B.I.AIR2006SC2449

Cr.P.C. S.389(3) is applicable only when

there is right to appeal

Bondada Gajapathy RaoVs.State of Andhra

PradeshAIR1964SC1645

Cr.P.C. S.394 Old S.431 When appellant has

died Appeal against fine only can be allowed

to be continued but not against imprisonment

Raghu Raj Singh RoushaVs.Shivam

Sundaram Promoters ((2009)2SCC363

Cr.P.C. S.397 against order refusing S.156

directing for inquiry Accused to be

impleaded

Hasmukh J. JhaveriVs.Shella Dadlani and

another1981CriLJ958

Cr.P.C. S.397 and 146 Not interlocutory

Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane Vs.Chandrasen

Jagdevrao Deshmukh 2008CriLJ3761

Cr.P.C. S.397 and 156(3) Interference with

order under Section 156(3) should normally

be confined to cases in which there are some

very exceptional circumstances

State of KeralaVs.K.M. Charia Abdullah

and Co.AIR1965SC1585

Cr.P.C. S.397 Distinction between Appeal

and Revision

K. Chinnaswamy ReddyVs.State of Andhra

PradeshAIR1962SC1788

Cr.P.C. S.397 Evi Act S.27 misinterpreted by

appellate Court Rehearing ordered

Madhu LimayeVs.The State of

MaharashtraAIR1978SC47

Cr.P.C. S.397 Interlocutory order test

explained

D. StephensVs.NosibollaAIR1951SC196 Cr.P.C. S.397 Jurisdiction not to be lightly

exercised when invoked by a private

complainant against an order of acquittal

against which the Government has a right of

appeal under section

Madhu LimayeVs.The State of

MaharashtraAIR1978SC47

Cr.P.C. S.397

Mohit alias Sonu and Anr.Vs.State of U.P.

and Anr.MANU-SC-0633-2013

Cr.P.C. S.397 Order which substantially

affects the right of the accused, or decides

certain rights of the parties cannot be said to

be an interlocutory order

Raj Kapoor and Ors.Vs.State and

Ors.AIR1980SC258

Cr.P.C. S.397 Petition under section 482

converted to revision

Mr. Joaquim Anthony D'Souza Anthony

D'SouzaVs.Mrs. Milinda Rosy D'Souza

Cr.P.C. S.397 Revision against interim

maintenace tenable

YogeshVs.The State of

Maharashtra2015(1)BomCR(Cri)750

Cr.P.C. S.397 Revision against order

directing complainant to remain present for

verification is not tenable

Kaptan Singh and others Vs.State of M.P.

and anotherAIR1997SC2485

Cr.P.C. S.397 Revision order setting aside

acquittal and retrial direction upheld- I.O.

findings not evidence

State of Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh

Kuldip Singh and Others, 2004 (7) SCC

659

Cr.P.C. S.397 Revision

K.K. Patel and Anr.Vs.State of Gujarat

and Anr.AIR2000SC3346

Cr.P.C. S.397 Test whether interlocutory

Madhu LimayeVs.The State of

MaharashtraAIR1978SC47

Cr.P.C. S.397 What is interim order is

explained

Kaptan Singh and others Vs.State of M.P.

and anotherAIR1997SC2485

Cr.P.C. S.401 Scope of revision explained

In Re_ District and Sessions Judge Raisen

2005(3)MPLJ26

Cr.P.C. S.409(2) Sessions Judge has power

to transfer partheard sessions case without

hearing

EmperorVs.Chunilal

Hargovan1926(28)BOMLR1023

Cr.P.C. S.412 (Old) Accused who pleaded

guilty can contend that his conviction was

illegal

Mr. Parkar Hasan Abdul GafoorVs.State of

Maharashtra & others1999(5)BomCR481

Cr.P.C. S.413 Surety is not automatically

discharged

DhanapalVs.State by Public Prosecutor

2009 Cri.L.J. 4647

Cr.P.C. S.417 Criminal Appellate Court

When can interefere

Aher Raja KhimaVs.The State of

SaurashtraAIR1956SC217

Cr.P.C. S.417 It is not enough to take a

different view of the evidence and there must

also be substantial and compelling reasons

for holding that the trial Court was wrong

Shankar Kerba Jadhav and Ors.Vs.The

State of MaharashtraAIR1971SC840

Cr.P.C. S.423(1) High Court set aside

acquittal by sessions. It can exceed original

sentence Appellate Courts Power of

punishment.doc

M.R. Kudva Appellant vs State Of Andhra

Pradesh 2007 (1) Crimes 50 (SC)

Cr.P.C. S.427 Concurrent plea has been

rejected as offences were different

Sadashiv Chhokha Sable Sadashiv

Chhokha Sable vs State Of

Maharashtra1993 CriLJ 1469

Cr.P.C. S.427 Cr.P.C. Undergoing sentence

means

Bapurao Trimbakrao SonawaneVs.The

State of Maharashtra and The

Superintendent of

Police2009(111)BOMLR1271

Cr.P.C. S.427 Different cheques of same

transaction with common notice can be trial

at one trial

Emperor vs Waman Dinkar Kelkar 20

BOMLR 998

Cr.P.C. S.427

Rajendra B. Choudhari vs State Of

Maharashtra And Anr 2007CriLJ844

Cr.P.C. S.427 Four cases of S.138 NI Act

consecutive sentence justified

Gulab Gaibu Shaikh Vs The State Of

Maharashtra 2001ALLMR(Cri)1404

Cr.P.C. S.427

Ranjit Singh vs Union Territory Of

Chandigarh AIR 1991 SC 2296

Cr.P.C. S.427

Cr.P.C. S.427 Sentence No Policy Soman

Vs State of Kerala 2012(12)SCALE719

Cr.P.C. S.427 State Of Maharashtra vs

Raju Dadaba Borge 2001 CriLJ 3638

Cr.P.C. S.427 Sunil Anandrao Sawant Vs

Government Of Maharashtra

Ammavasai and AnrVs.Inspector of Police

and Ors.AIR2000SC3544

Cr.P.C. S.427 Totality of sentence has been

considered

Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim

Ahmed BhattiVs.Assistant Collector of

Customs AIR1988SC2143

Cr.P.C. S.427 Totality of sentence has to be

considered

Sadashiv Chhokha Sable Sadashiv

Chhokha Sable vs State Of

Maharashtra1993 CriLJ 1469

Cr.P.C. S.427 Undergoing sentence means

M.R. KudvaVs.State of Andhra

PradeshAIR2007SC568

Cr.P.C. S.427 Whether concurrent or

consecutive has to be considered by the latter

Court convicting

Narayanan NambeesanVs.The State of

Maharashtra1974(76)BOMLR690

Cr.P.C. S.428 Courts should specify the pre-

conviction detention. Procedural law is

retrospective gives benefit to all convicts

Shiv Mohan SinghVs.The State (Delhi

Administration)AIR1977SC949

Cr.P.C. S.428 Death sentence validity upheld

Namdeo @ Ram Krushna KhotVs.The

State of Maharashtra2006(6)MhLj783

Cr.P.C. S.428 Set off if not given simple

misc. application is sufficient

State of Maharashtra and Anr.vs.Najakat

Alia Mubarak Ali AIR2001SC2255

Cr.P.C. S.428 Set off is entitled for the

period of detention in the instant crime

though during same period he was

undergoing sentence in another case

Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Najakat Alia

Mubarak Ali AIR2001SC2255

Cr.P.C. S.428 Set off of the detention in

sentenced case is available even if accused

was simultaneous undergoing sentence in

other case

Dinesh M.N. (S.P.)Vs.State of

GujaratAIR2008SC2318

Cr.P.C. S.429(2) Trial is not likely to be

concluded in the near future or the period of

incarceration would not be sufficient for

granting bail

SC in Swamy Shraddananda Murali

Manohar Mishra vs Vs.State Of Karnataka

on 22 July, 2008

Cr.P.C. S.433 Life imprisonment with

direction for rest of life

State of Haryana and Ors.Vs.Jagdish and

HarpalAIR2010SC1690Remission

Cr.P.C. S.433A Case of convict was to be

considered on strength of policy on existing

date of his conviction

State of Haryana and Ors.Vs.Jagdish and

HarpalAIR2010SC1690

Cr.P.C. S.433A For remission policy as on

conviction date would prevail. If beneficial

to convict policy as on date of consideration

also applicable

Mulla and Anr.Vs.State of Uttar

PradeshAIR2010SC942

Cr.P.C. S.433A Life imprisonment is for 20

years unless directed otherwise

Rasiklal Vs. Kisore Khanchand

WadhwaniAIR2009SC1341

Cr.P.C. S.436 Bail in bailable offences is rule

Salim Ikramuddin Ansari and

Anr.Vs.Officer-in-Charge, Borivali Police

Station and Ors.2004(4)MhLj725

Cr.P.C. S.436 Court to call information

whether the accused was released on bail or

not

Sukhwant Singh & Ors. Vs. State Of

Punjab (2009) 7 SCC 559

Cr.P.C. S.436 Interim Bail is inherent

Siddharam Satlingappa MhetreVs.State of

Maharashtra and Ors.AIR2011SC312

Cr.P.C. S.436

Monit MalhotraVs.The State of

Rajasthan1991CriLJ806

Cr.P.C. S.436 The accused in bailable

offence bailed out by police need not apply

to the Maigsitrate for fresh bail

Siddharam Satlingappa MhetreVs.State of

Maharashtra and Ors.AIR2011SC312

Cr.P.C. S.436 to 450

Sandeep Jain Vs National Capital Territory

of Delhi Rep. by Secretary, Home Deptt.

(18.01.2000 - SC)

Cr.P.C. S.437 Accused cannot be kept in jail

for failure to make payment as per bail order.

UttamkumarVs.The State of

Maharashtra2012BomCR(Cri)697

Cr.P.C. S.437 and 439 Accused again

arrested for added offence

Uttamkumar Vs. The State of Maharashtra

2012 Bom C.R.(Cri) 697

Cr.P.C. S.437 and 439 After bail police

added life or death section Magistrate cannot

release otherwise he can additional surety

Bom HC Ambarish Rangshahi Patnigere vs

The State Of Maharashtra

2012(1)MhLj900

Cr.P.C. S.437 and I.P.C. S.409 JMFC has

power to grant bail

Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V.

Vijay Sai Reddy AIR2013SC2216

Cr.P.C. S.437 Bail cancelled accused rected

to surrender

Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs

Cbi

Cr.P.C. S.437 Bail considerations

State of MaharashtraVs.Kaushar Yasin

Qureshi and another1996(2)MhLj485

Cr.P.C. S.437 Bail for S.326 by Magistrate

sustained, bail for S.302 cancelled

Sundeep Kumar BafnaVs.State of

Maharashtra and Anr.2014(4)SCALE215

Cr.P.C. S.437 Before taking the accused into

judicial custody there would be arrest

Nandini BhatnagarVs.State Govt. of NCT

of DelhiI(2013)DMC495

Cr.P.C. S.437 Condition not to go abroad

without permission deleted

Km. Hema MishraVs.State of U.P. and

Ors.AIR2014SC1066

Cr.P.C. S.437 High Court shall not direct

subordinate to decide bail application on

same day Interim bail is permissible,

UP FB in Amarawati and Anr.

(Smt.)Vs.State of U.P.2005CriLJ755

Cr.P.C. S.437 High Court should ordinarily

not direct any subordinate court to decide the

bail application the same day-

Sukhwant singh vs state of punjab

2010CriLJ1435 and (2009) 7 SCC 559

Cr.P.C. S.437 Interim Bail is Inherent Power

The Balasaheb Satbhai Merchant ... vs The

State Of Maharashtra 2012BomCR(Cri)841

Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate can grant bail in

S.409 IPC as triable by himself held by

Justice Potdar

EmperorVs.Rautmal Kanumal

MarwadiAIR1940Bom40

Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has inherent power

to cancel bail which was granted by another

Magistrate for the smooth trial

Batta Hanuman Vishwanath Nehare Vs.

State Of Maharashtra 2001(3)MhLj465

Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has no power of

bail in life term cases held by Justice

Ramji Vs.State of Punjab MANU-PH-

0150-2001

Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has power to grant

bail in offences triable by him PH HC

Mr. Ishan Vasant Deshmukh alias Prasad

Vasant KulkarniVs.The State of

Maharashtra2011(2)MhLj361R.C. Chavan,

J

Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has power to grant

bail in S.409 and 467 IPC case

Allahabad HC Ram Bharoshi and

Ors.Vs.State of U.P. and

Anr.2004(3)ACR2563

Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has power to grant

bail in sessions triable offence not punishable

with life or death

Prahlad Singh Bhati vs N.C.T., Delhi AIR

2001 SC 1444

Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate shall not grant bail

in sessions triable offence Anticipatory bail

for lessor offence

Jyoti Kaut Kohli Vs. State of Maha Cr.P.C. S.437 Powers of Magistrate referred

for larger bench

Dr. Raghubir SharanVs.The State of

BiharAIR1964SC1

Cr.P.C. S.437 Second Opinion -When

medical reason is a ground for bail the

Magistrate can call for detailed report from

medical officer

Ganeshanan Lakshmanan and Anr.Vs.The

State of MaharashtraMANU-MH-0345-

2009

Cr.P.C. S.437 Solvency Certificate need not

be insisted for always

Dr. Raghubir SharanVs.The State of

BiharAIR1964SC1

Cr.P.C. S.437 When medical reason is a

ground for bail the Magistrate can call for

detailed report from medical officer

Santosh Bhaurao RautVs.State of

Maharashtra1989MhLJ162

Cr.P.C. S.437(1)(i) attracted even if the law

prescribes death or imprisonment for life as

the maximum

BhagwatVs.State of Maharashtra and Anr Cr.P.C. S.437(5) Cancellation of bail for

breach of condition of attending police

station was set aside

Union of India and others Vs.Major

General Madan Lal Yadav AIR 1996 SC

1340

Cr.P.C. S.437(6) Trial commences when the

matter is posted for evidence

Cr.P.C. S.437A Allahabad HC Syed

ArmanVs.State of U.P.2012ACR1681

Balkrishna Mahadev LadVs.State of

Maharashtra2012BomCR(Cri)300

Cr.P.C. S.437A and 390 Accused even after

acquittal can be detained for not furnishing

surety

Sareena, O.P.Vs.State of

KeralaILR2013(1)Kerala537

Cr.P.C. S.437A not mandatory

2012_STPL(Web)_470_SC Cr.P.C. S.438 An Absconding accused is not

entitled for anticipatory bail

Rakesh Baban BorhadeVs.State of

MaharashtraDecided On_ 19.11.2014

Cr.P.C. S.438 Anticipatory bail cannot be

granted as a rule but subject to satisfaction

that the accused would not misuse

Asaram Sitaram PadoleVs.Yadaorao

Raghobaji Hatwar and

Ors.1991(93)BOMLR994

Cr.P.C. S.438 Anticipatory bail continues till

cancellation or trial is over

Narinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. vs. Union

of India and ors.(2002)2SCC210

Cr.P.C. S.438 Anticipatory bail refused in

while collored crimes of cheating in

numerous states

State State of Assam and Anr.Vs.Dr.

Brojen Gogol and Ors.AIR1997SC4101

Cr.P.C. S.438 Application to be heard by the

High Court having jurisdiction over the place

of offence with notice to that

Sumit MehtaVs.State of N.C.T. of Delhi Cr.P.C. S.438 Deposit condition deleted

J. Bhatkar ordjud Cr.P.C. S.438 does not lie against non-

bailable warrant by Magistrate

MP HC

Dr._Pradeep_Kumar_Soni_vs_State_Of_M

adhya_Pradesh_on_13_March,_1990

Cr.P.C. S.438 High Court not to grant

anticipatory bail for crime in another state

Mukesh Kishanpuria Vs. State of West

Bengal 2010 (4) SCALE 649

Cr.P.C. S.438 Interim Bail -Grant of regular

bail includes power to grant interim bail

pending main application

Harjit SinghVs.Union of India (UOI) and

Ors.1994CriLJ3134

Cr.P.C. S.438 Jurisdiction lies with the court

having local jurisdiction

Dr. Pradeep Kumar SoniVs.State of

Madhya Pradesh1990CriLJ2055

Cr.P.C. S.438 Jurisdiction lies with the court

where offence took place

State of Assam and Anr.Vs.Dr. Brojen

Gogol and Ors.AIR1997SC4101

Cr.P.C. S.438 Jurisdiction_ Application to be

heard by the High Court having jurisdiction

over the place of offence with notice to that

State

Narinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. vs.Union

of India and ors

Cr.P.C. S.438 Not applicable to person

already arrested and in prison

Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and

Ors.Vs.State of PunjabAIR1980SC1632

Cr.P.C. S.438 When can anticipatory bail

granted is explained

Niranjan Singh and Anr.Vs.Prabhakar

Rajaram Kharote and Ors.AIR1980SC785

Cr.P.C. S.439 Appearance of accused before

the Court amounts to custody

C.B.I.New Delhi Vs. Abhishek Verma Cr.P.C. S.439 Bail matter

Anilkumar vs State Of Maharashtra on

15.11.1989

Cr.P.C. S.439 Cancellation of bail

Anwari BegumVs.Sher Mohammad and

Anr.AIR2005SC3530

Cr.P.C. S.439 Factors to be considered for

bail are discussed

Amarawati and Anr. (Smt.)Vs.State of

U.P.2005CriLJ755

Cr.P.C. S.439 Interim bail can be granted on

the same day UP FB in

Neeru YadavVs.State of

U.P.2014(14)SCALE59

Cr.P.C. S.439 Parity ground is not absolute

Antecedents of applicant may warrant

rejection of bail

Niranjan Singh & Anr vs Prabhakar

Rajaram Kharote & ors 1980 AIR 785

Cr.P.C. S.439 Submitting to the Court also

amounts to custody

Sundeep Kumar BafnaVs.State of

Maharashtra and Anr.MANU-SC-0239-

2014

Cr.P.C. S.439 Surrender before Sessions

Court and bail application

Dinesh Singh Arjun SinghVs.State of U.P.

and Pramod Singh Bhagwan Singh

Cr.P.C. S.439(1) Bail order cancelled by

High court itself

Jai KrishanVs.The State of Punjab and

Others2010(1)RCR(Criminal)249 Punjab

Cr.P.C. S.439(2) Bail obtained by fraud

Dinesh M_N_ (S_P_) vs State Of Gujarat

on 28 April, 2008

Cr.P.C. S.439(2) Bail when to cancel

Puran, Shekhar And Anr vs Rambilas &

Anr., State Of ... on 3 May, 2001

Cr.P.C. S.439(2) Cancellation of bail

justified

Puran, Shekhar And Anr vs Rambilas &

Anr., State Of ... on 3 May, 2001

Cr.P.C. S.439(2) Cancellation of bail

Dr_ Narendra K Amin vs State Of Gujarat

And Anr on 28 April, 2008

Cr.P.C. S.439(2) When can the bail be

cancelled

State (Delhi Administration)Vs.Sanjay

GandhiAIR1978SC961

Cr.P.C. S.439(2)_ Bail can be cancelled on

allegation of tampering Bombay case

referred in

Free Legal Aid CommitteeVs.State of

BiharAIR1982SC1463

Cr.P.C. S.441(3) and 209 Bail bond is for

appearance before Sessions Court also

Mr. Sajal Kumar Mitra and Ors.Vs.The

State of Maharashtra2011CriLJ2744

Cr.P.C. S.445 Pending surety verification

Magistrates has power to release accused on

cash surety and thereafter asking him to

furnish solvent sureties

Bhoja Babu Salian vs State Of

Maharashtra1983 (2) BomCR 165

Cr.P.C. S.446 Forfeit first and then issue

show cause notice to recover amount

Ghulam Mehdi vs State Of Rajasthan

AIR1960SC1185

Cr.P.C. S.446 Show cause notice necessary

Divisional Forest Officer and Anr.Vs.G.V.

Sudhakar Rao and Ors.MANU-SC-0069-

1985

Cr.P.C. S.451 and 452 explained in Forest

Act Case

General Insurance Council and

Ors.Vs.State of Andhra Pradesh and

Ors.2010CriLJ2883

Cr.P.C. S.451 and 457 Supreme Court

directions regarding custody of seized

properties

Delhi Excise Act State (NCT of

Delhi)Vs.Narender MANU-SC-0010-2014

Cr.P.C. S.451 Magistrate has no jurisdiction

to release vehicle under

State Bank of IndiaVs.Rajendra Kumar

Singh and Ors.AIR1969SC401

Cr.P.C. S.451 Party adversely affected

should be heard before the Court makes an

order for return of the seized property

State (NCT of

Delhi)Vs.Narender2014ALLMR(Cri)736

Cr.P.C. S.457 and Excise Act Due to

confiscation clause Magistrate has no

jurisdiction to release vehicle

State of KarnatakaVs.K.A.

KunchindammedAIR2002SC1875

Cr.P.C. S.457 and Forest Act Magistrate has

no jurisdiction to give interim custody

Navin Vasantraj Modh Vs State of

Maharashtra 2012BomCR(Cri)685

Cr.P.C. S.457 Aplication was directed to be

decided at the end

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai And C.M. ... vs

State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2002

Cr.P.C. S.457 Directions regarding disposal

of seized properties

State of U.P. and Anr.Vs.Lalloo

Singh(2007)7SCC334

Cr.P.C. S.457 is not applicable in view of

S.50 of Wild Life Act

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M.

MudaliarVs.State of

GujaratAIR2003SC638

Cr.P.C. S.457 Supreme Court guidelines for

disposal of properties

Prakash Tarachand SakhreVs.Ashok

Pundloikrao Wajge and

Anr.2001CriLJ3024

Cr.P.C. S.457 When it is proved that T.T.

forms were submitted non-transfer of

registration of vehicle does not matter

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs.V.K.

SehgalAIR1999SC3706

Cr.P.C. S.465(2) Court to consider whether

objection had raised objection PC Act S.19

Japani SahooVs.Chandra Sekhar

MohantyAIR2007SC2762

Cr.P.C. S.468 Date of filing complaint and

not cognizance be counted

Limination Arun Vyas & Anr vs Anita

Vyas on 14 May, 1999

Cr.P.C. S.468 Limitaion Rational and

Purpose behind

Japani SahooVs.Chandra Sekhar

MohantyAIR2007SC2762

Cr.P.C. S.468 Limitation Date of filing

complaint and not cognizance be counted

State Of Punjab vs Sarwan Singh1981

SCALE (1)619

Cr.P.C. S.468(2) Bar of limitation on

prosecutions was clearly to prevent the

parties from filing cases after a long time

Jethmal Himmatmal Jain and

othersVs.State of

Maharashtra1981CriLJ1813

Cr.P.C. S.473 Delay should be explained in

the complaint or separate application and

Court should pass speaking order

Rakesh Kumar JainVs.State Through CBI

AIR 2000 SC 2754

Cr.P.C. S.473 Delay stood explained

Cr.P.C. S.473 Interest of justice cannot be

interpreted to mean in the interest of

prosecution

Mrs. Sarah MathewVs.The Institute of

Cardio Vascular DiseasesMANU-SC-

1210-2013

Cr.P.C. S.473 Notice to accused before

taking cognizance is not contemplated

Kanwardeepsingh Harbansingh

BediVs.The State of

Maharashtra2010CriLJ315

Cr.P.C. S.475 and Court Martial (A.o.J)

Rules, 1952 Notice to Commandant

necessary

Cr.P.C. S.475 Central Govt to decide

Military Authority or Criminal Court

Accused did not ask for counsel hence no

prejudice

Cr.P.C. S.482 and 397 Bombay HC Ramona

M. Chandiramani Revision against issue

process order tenable

Kailash Shreekisan ChaurasiaVs.State of

Maharashtra & Ors.2012BomCR(Cri)83

Cr.P.C. S.482 Avinash Madhukar

Mukhedkar vs. The State of Maharashtra

NOT FOLLOWED

Modilal Kaluram Kachhara and

etc.Vs.State of Maharashtra MANU-MH-

0041-1988

Cr.P.C. S.482 Case transfer from one

Magistrate to another Magistrate rejected

Abasaheb Yadav Honmane And ___ vs

The State Of Maharashtra on 12 March,

2008

Cr.P.C. S.482 No compounding of

noncompoundable offences

Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia & Ors_ Vs_

State Of Punjab & Ors_ on 5 May, 2009

Cr.P.C. S.482 When can FIR be quashed

Gian SinghVs.State of Punjab and

Anr.2012BomCR(Cri)428

Cr.P.C. S.482 Which offences can be

quashed SC in

Amrut GajbhiyeVs. The State of

Maharashtra1974CriLJ1075

Cr.P.C. S.499(1) Old Code Accused did not

execute PRBond Hence, surety not

enforceable Mahadeo

Rengaswami NaickerVs.Muruga

NaickenAIR1954Mad169

Cr.P.C. S.511 Old Code Judge must watch

that justice triumphs

Talab Haji HussainVs.Madhukar

Purshottam Mondkar and

Anr.AIR1958SC376

Cr.P.C. S.561A (Old Section) High Court

can cancel bail in bailable offence

State of GujaratVs.Krushnmorari

Ramkrushna Gupta and

Ors(1988)2GLR965

Cr.P.C. S.Pleading guilty After explaining

charge Court should inform about minimum

sentence unless special reasons are shown

The State Of Maharashtra vs Manik Mohan

Gaikwad on 26 November, 2008

Cr.P.C. T.I. Parade and purpose No provision

in Cr.P.C. which obliges investigation

agency to hold identification parade

Sanction Matajog DobeyVs.H.C.

BhariAIR1956SC44

Cr.PC. S.197 Constitution Bench on

necessity of

Banslochan Lal and

Anr.Vs.EmperorAIR1930Pat195

How to deal with certain advocates

Human Rights CommissionVs.State of

Gujarat and Ors.(2009)6SCC342

Fair Trial and About Witnesses protection

National

Nanak ChandVs.The State of

PunjabAIR1955SC274

I.P.C. S.34 AND 149 Distinction is explained

Ramesh Vithal PatilVs.State of Karnataka

and Ors.2014(2)Crimes227(SC)

IPC S.304B and 498A conviction under

section 306

K. Prema S. Rao and Anr.Vs.Yadla

Srinivasa Rao and OrsAIR2003SC11

IPC S.304B charged but convicted for

S.498A and 306

State of MaharashtraVs.Vishwanath

Tukaram Umale and Ors.AIR1979SC1825

IPC S.411 and Police Act S.124 and Railway

Property Act S.3 Possession of property need

not be necessarily a subsisting possession

Union of India (UOI) and Anr.Vs.B.N.

Ananti Padmanabiah etc.AIR1971SC1836

JMFC has jurisdiction throughout District

Madhav RaojiVs.StateAIR1952Bom385 M.V. Act Old S.113 Conviction upheld

though summons were served after 28 days

Ashok Gyanchand Vohra vs The State Of

Maharashtra And Anr

MCOCA S.9 and 23 Private Complaint

tenable

Kartar SinghVs.State of

Punjab(1994)3SCC569

Mens rea and Law and Order and Pith and

Substance

Sau Devakibai Vs State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC decided on 24.07.2014

MRTP Act S.142 Prosecution not tenable for

want of previous sanction

Ramesh vs State Of Rajasthan on 22

February, 2011

Murder of Money Lender Case

Mahadeo Amrut GajbhiyeVs. The State of

Maharashtra1974CriLJ1075

Old Cr.P.C. S.499(1) Accused did not

execute PRBond Hence, surety not

enforceable

Association Vs.Union of India (UOI)

Through its Secretary,AIR2011Bom171

PCPNDT Circular for online information

was upheld Radiological and Imaging

Diwan BhaiVsUnion of India and

OrsMANU DE 1823 2001

Plea not signed by accused no interference

Thomas DanaVs.The State of

PunjabAIR1959SC375

Penalty and Punishment difference

Champaklal GaneshmalVs.The State of

MaharashtraAIR1975SC160

Police Act S.124 Possession of foreign made

wrist watches unexplained Hence conviction

upheld

Aher Raja Khima vs The State Of

Saurashtra on 22 December, 1955

Police Credibility

The_State_Of_Maharashtra_And_Etc._..._

vs_Saeed_Sohail_Sheikh_Etc._Etc._on_2_

November,_2012

Prisoners Act S.29(2) Not applicable to

undertrial prisoners

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma ROLE

OF PROSECUTOR

Prosecutor's role explained and Delay in

recording the statement of the witnesses do

not necessarily discredit their testimonies

Shri Sandeep Indravadan SagarVs.State of

Maharashtra and others decided on

10.01.2013

Rubber stamp use -mentioned

The Food InspectorVs.M. Pandarinath and

Anr.1992(2)APLJ396

Sanction and Consent Explained

Hardeep Singh SohalVs.State of Punjab

through(2004)11SCC612

TADA S.15(1) Confession cannot be used

against coaccused in other than joint trial