Mani Mohan Ghose: The 3 information were recorded and the question as to which is the FIR was

discussed. The two informations didn’t relate to cognizable offences and the third information recorded
after the inquiry for preventive purposes was considered as FIR as it showed the information relating to
the cognizable offences. It is not necessary that the first information received to the police is FIR. The
information related to the cognizable offence will be considered as FIR.

Lalita Kumari: Writ petition originally filed by Lalita Kumari through her father for issuance of
writ of Habeas Corpus or like direction against the respondents herein for the protection of his
minor daughter who has been kidnapped. The grievance in the said writ petition is that on
11.05.2008, a written report was submitted by the petitioner before the officer in-charge of the
police station concerned who did not take any action on the same. Thereafter, when the
Superintendent of Police was moved, an FIR was registered. According to the petitioner, even
thereafter, steps were not taken either for apprehending the accused or for the recovery of the
minor girl child.

Issue: Whether “a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon
receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) or the police officer has the power to
conduct a “preliminary inquiry” in order to test the veracity of such information before
registering the same?”

 The Court held that the word shall is included in the Section 154 with a view and
the intent of the legislature. So there has to be a mandatory requirement of registering
the FIR when the information relates to the commission of any cognizable offence and
no preliminary inquiry will be permitted in this situation. But if the information does not
disclose commission of any cognizable offence then the police may execute a
preliminary enquiry into the matter only to ascertain about the cognizable offence of
the complaint. After the inquiry the FIR have to be launched if the matter relating to the
commission of the cognizable offence is found out. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends
in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first
informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the
complaint and not proceeding further. If any police officer found not registering the FIR with
respect to the above circumstances then action will be taken against him as he is not fulfilling his
duty. The General Diary should have the record of the Preliminary inquiry and also the end of
that inquiry.

Youth Bar Association Case: This case basically talks about the petition (Writ of Mandamus) that was
filed by the petitioner to the Court for issuing a direction to all the police stations of India to upload each
and every First Information Report registered in all the police stations within the territory of India in the
official website of the police of all States, as early as possible, preferably within 24 hours from the time
of registration.

The Court held that the FIRs have to be uploaded on the official websites and the FIRs relating to
sensitive matters won’t be uploaded. It can be obtained from the Court. The upload may be extended to
48 hrs due to issue in connectivity but not more than 72 hrs. The decision not to upload the copy of the
FIR onthe website shall not be taken by an officer below therank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or
any person holding equivalent post. In case, the States whereDistrict Magistrate has a role, he may also
assume the said authority. A decision taken by the concerned police officer or the District Magistrate
shall be duly communicated to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.

Arnesh Kumar: In this case basically the wife of Arnesh Kumar has filed a complaint under
s.498-A against the husband and the relatives for demanding the dowry like some amount, tv etc. So
the husband denying these allegations filed an anticipatory bail but it was rejected. So the husband filed
a special leave petition and had challenged the procedure under S.41 of the Crpc and the dutiesof the
police officers.

The Court talked about the situation of these type of cases in India and how the section 498-A of
the IPC is misused by the wife against the relatives of the husband. Arrests bring humiliation and the
police also misuses their power of arrest. So in this case the Court basically laid some guidelines for the
police regarding the power and procedure of arrest.

1. The police have to satisfy themselves for the necessity of the arrest through the
provisions of S.41 Crpc.
2. All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses
under Section 41(1)(b)(ii).
3. The check list with complete details to be submitted to the Magistrate while
submitting the accused to him.
4. The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report
furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its
satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention.
5. The decision of not to arrest the accused will have to be submitted to the
Magistrate within two weeks from the institution of the case which may be
extended by the Superintendent of Police with resons in writing.
6. Notice under S.41A to be furnished to the accused within two weeks of the
institution of the case which may be extended by the Superintendent of the Police
with reasons in writing.
7. Not adhering with the above directions shall attract departmental action towards
the police and contempt of Court before High Court having jurisdiction.
8. Magistrate authorizing detention without reasons shall be liable for departmental
action before the High Court.
The above directions are not only applicable to dowry related cases under 498-A but any case
where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years
or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal: This case arose when the executive chairman of the legal
aid of West Bengal wrote a letter to the CJI relating to the increase in custodial violence and
deaths that occur due to this. To counter this the State of WB responded by answering that the
police indulging inthese thype of violences are punished. Subsequently a letter was received by
the court written by by Shri Ashok Kumar Johri on 29.7.87 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India
drawing the attention of this Court to the death of one Mahesh Bihari of Pilkhana, Aligarh in
police custody was received. That letter was also treated as a writ petition and was directed to
be listed alongwith the writ petition filed by Shri D.K. Basu. To this the Court decided to write
notices with directions to all the State govts and the Law Commission of India and to reply with
suggestions within two months.

The Court while taking into consideration the problems related to Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution and the procedures related to the duties of the police officers at the time of
arrest and custody under Crpc and also talking about the case like Nilabati Bahera and similar
case the court laid down the following guidelines. And if these guidelines weren’t followed and I
fthe criminal was tortured then he will be liable to be compensated.

1. The police should have proper identification of themselves while carrying out the
arrest as listed under S.41B of the Crpc and the details should also be registered.
2. The memo will be created and signed by the relative, police and the accused person.
3. The information about the arrest, place for detention etc. will all be informed to the
relative of the accused known to him.
4. The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the
police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or
town through the legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the
area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.
5. The person arrested should ben informed about his right to have someone informed.
6. Entry in the register will be made about the arrest, details of the place, informed
relative and also the details of the police officials.
7. The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his
arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded
at that time. The "Inspection Memo" must be signed both by the arrestee and the
police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.
8. The arrested person should be subjected to medical examination by trained doctor
every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved
doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the concerned Stare or Union
 Territory. Director, Health Services should prepare such a penal for all Tehsils and
Districts as well.
9. Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should
be sent to the Magistrate for his record.
10. The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not
throughout the interrogation.
11. A police control room should be provided at all district and state headquarters,
where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall
be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the
arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice
board.
Failure to comply with the requirements hereinabove mentioned shall apart from rendering the
concerned official liable for departmental action, also render his liable to be punished for
contempt of court and the proceedings for contempt of court may be instituted in any High
Court of the country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter.

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State Of Maharashtra :

http://www.nja.nic.in/10.%20Siddh%20Mhetre.pdf

Sanjay Chandra: The appellant were convicted of the charge of scam and criminal conspiracy.
This was done in obtaining UAS licenses related to the companies. Bail applications were moved
to the lower court and also the High Court. But they were rejected. So by SLP this matter came
to the SC with the main issue of the powers of Court for granting bail and on what conditions.

The Court discussed a lot about the seriousness of the crime and the possibility of
witness tempering, which can be the reason not to grant bail. Bail is preferred against jail. Bail is
basically given to decrease the mental burden from the accused and also to decrease the
burden from the State Govt and the expenses. The seriousness of the crime, quantum of
punishment, witness tampering, cooperation with the investigation etc. are the many
circumstances that should be considered when granting bail. We cannot change the legislative
intent if the sections and rule accordingly. So, in this case the accused had very little to do with
the offence committed and there were many witnesses and evidences that had to be judged
yet which may take a lot of time for the trial to end. There were no chances of witness
tampering and the time may be longer than the timeframe of detention. It would be against the
justice system to hold the accused for an indefinite period. So the appellants were released on
bail with certain conditions.
Court on its own motion v. CBI: The main issue was whether the accused person should be
present when charge-sheet has to be presented. The Court held that there is no necessity of
the accused to be present if he is been cooperative to all conditions and to the investigation.
And after this the Magistrate may send the summon notice to call the accused and not to
terminate the bail. The Court also laid some guidelines with respect to bail.

Puran vs Rambilas: In this case, the Petitioner had, married to one Puja who died in one year
of their marriage. The husband with other 3 ladies was accused under dowry laws and 498-A
IPC. They were granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge and by jotting out some reasons.
But the High Court in the appeal against the judgement, cancelled the bail with giving the
reasons that the Additional Sessions Judge didn’t go into the merits and the demerits of the
case. The Appeal was made then to the SC that the HC themselves didn’t go into the merits of
the case and they didn’t have the power to cancel the bail. The Court held that the HC has the
power to cancel the bail on their own discretion but with subject to provisions of the code and
the merits and demerits of the case. The hierarchy of the Courts and S.439(2) allows the HC to
cancel the bail but only in appropriate cases. The SC concluded by holding that the HC cancelled
the bail for valid and cogent reasons and so the petition failed.

State Of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy: Tapas was the architect of the town of Daman
and Diu and the proper allocation for industrial and agricultural lands was made but then Tpas
aand the other person changed the Maps and more area was allocated to the industries which
could have been done only by the Collector and further by Town Planning Department. Due to
this conspiracy the prices of land increased drastically and pursuant to the FIRs the police
ordered searches and the lockers, some documents and the partially owned locker with the
mother was also seized. So the mother applied for the respective relief for the locker where she
was the owner which was allowed. But the operation was refused. The HC allowed the petitions
and while interpreting S.102 of the Crpc held that the bank account of the accused or any
relative cannot be counted as property under 102. The State of Maharashtra, then appealed to
the SC against the judgement of the HC.

It was proved before the SC that the operation was allowed but the SC decided to
decide upn this issue as in general for all the High Courts. The Sc after considering judgements
by different HCs came to the conclusion, that we cannot interpret the sections of the Code in a
narrower perspective and the offences related to the Corruption has also increased a lot with
the bank accounts at the center point of action through which the money is transferred or
stored. So we consider the Bank accounts of the accused and any of the relation to be under
the scope of property under S.102 and it does relate to suspicion of commission of any offence.
This was the basic legislative intent and so the police may seize bank accounts and prohibit
from operation.

Abhinandan Jha : This case basically talks about the power of the Magistrate and the
provisions of S.173. The issue in contention was whether the Magistrate can call for the
chargesheet after the closure or final report has been filed by the police where no case was
made out according to the police. So basically in this petition the two criminal cases were
combined for a common judgement relating to the issue of Protest petition by the appellants
after the closure or final report had been filed, and whether the Magistrate can go against the
report of the police and call in for the charge-sheet.

The Court considered various judgements of HCs and also considered the power for
Magistrate under the sections. The Magistrates doesn’t clearly have the power under sections
related to this issue and many powers are given related to the investigations to the police
officers but it doesn’t mean that the Magistrate is powerless. The Magistrate has been given a
wide power for taking cognizance of the offence but it is not given anywhere impliedly or
expressly that he can ask for charge-sheet under S.173 after the closure report has been filed.
The Magistrate cannot go against the police and ask for charge-sheet but he has the option to
consider the protest petition as a complaint and take cognizance under S.190 differently after
the closure report has been filed. It would be on the police to consider the report as final report
or charge-sheet and this final authority cannot be given to anyone else other than the police.
The Magistrate can refuse the report and take suitable action according to it but he cannot in
any case compel the police to change their opinion. So finally the Court held that in these cases
the surrounding facts should also be taken into consideration and it is not very clear that
whether the Magistrate considered it as a complaint or not. And for the 2nd case also this Court
was not required to consider the other allegations etc. So Court set aside the order of
Magistrates for charge-sheet and the appeals were allowed to that extent.

Bhagwant Singh: The main issue that arises in this writ petition, was whether a Magistrate can
after accepting the final report where no offences are made, acquit the accused and drop the
proceedings without issuing notice to the first informant or to the injured or in this case the
relatives of the deceased. The Court held that the injured person has to be given the notice by
the Magistrate. But here the issue of issuing notice to the relative of the deceased had to be
considered. The Court held that they are already kept in the loop when police. But the
Magistrate doesn’t has to send the notice to the relative but it is upon him to send the notice.
The relative has locus to appear before the Magistrate when he is considering the issue. Even if
the Magistrate doesn’t have the duty to send the notice for the hearing but if he doesn’t he
doesn’t invalidate or go against any law. But this Court also held that in the case of the victim
being alive or the informant must be given the notice when the Magistrate is taking cognizance
and he must be also given a chance to be heard. But in the case of the relative of the informant
or the injured person, it is not mandatory for the judge to furnish notice but he can do that on
his own discretion.

Prof. N.K. Ganguly: In this case the appellants were a part of Indian Council of Medical
Research. A written complaint was filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI against the
appellants under S.120-B and Prevention of Corruption Act for illegally transferring lands to a
Housing Society and as public servants. All the investigation was completed and a charge-sheet
was filed and after that the Special Judge came to a conclusion of a prima-casie case and so
took cognizance of the case. An appeal was made to the HC against this action of taking
cognizance and prayed for quashing the entire proceeding. But the HC didn’t find any merit in
doing that. So this appeal came to the SC under S.197.

The Court, after referring to various cases regarding the offences that have to be
examined when applying S.197 and also towards relation of the commission of the crime in
discharge of the official duties by the public servants, held that in the instant case it was very
clearly proved by the lawyers of the appellants with reference to various cases that the
appellants committed the crime while discharging their official duties and so a previous
sanction was required from the Central Govt. by the Special Judge in this case to take
cognizance. It was proved that the sanction was not obtained and so the appeals were allowed.

Mohd. Hadi Raja v. State of Bihar: This case also talks about S.197 of the Crpc and the main
issue here was whether S.197 be applicable on the officers of the public sector units of the Govt. with
deep and pervasive control of finance and administration which are held as state under Art.12. The
learned counsel submitted through various cases that these units have been a par with the other govt.
organizations and the official who cannot be removed apart from the Govt, and who under their official
duty commit any offence then have to be protected as they discharge the duties and functions of the
State or the Union Govt. Further they contended that these organizations are like third arm of the Govt
and discharge the same duties and so they cannot be treated differently. The other Counsels through
cases and arguments contended that they are instrumentalities of the Govt but all doesn’t take up the
affairs of the Govt and the laws and liabilities for them are also different. They cannot be held as
departments of the Govt. for all cases. It was finally contended that the people talked about under S.197
will have to be considered as directly employed by the Govt.

The Court held that the protection to these officers was also given after they had ceased office
of the Govt. for their acts they committed during their tenure. The term ‘Public Servant’ was not defined
in the Crpc but acc. To S. 2(y) of the Crpc the terms used in this code but not defined will have the same
meanings as given in the IPC. The Court after considering various judgements held that the
instrumentalities with a corporate veil are considered as a different legal entity even if they are under
the control of the Govt. Section 21 of the IPC was taken into consideration while defining public
servants. But on the plain meaning of the S.197 the public servants of these instrumentalities cannot be
given the protection under this section and if this protection was intended then it would have been
expressly provided in this section. So the officers of the govt. instrumentalities cannot be given the
protection under S.197.

Punjab State Warehousing Corp v. Bhushan Chander: In this case the facts were that the
godown assistant was accused of tampering with the gunny bags of the Corporation which he
was associated with and was accused of various offences under IPC. The charge-sheet was filed
and was convicted by the Sessions judge. The respondent appealed in the HC about the matter
of non-obtaining sanction from the Govt. The HC didn’t properly look into the merits and just
said that he was the public servant under the S.197 and the corporation was a govt.
organization. There was a difference in one offence but it was also counted under S.197 and
sanction was required for this, which was not obtained and so the punishment was set aside.

The SC held that many cases, relating to the definition of public servant, corporations
under the State for this matter etc. were not cited to the HC and so proper decisions were not
made due to this. In conclusion the Court held that the protective petitions cannot be granted
to the respondent, with the same reasoning as under the case of Mohd. Hadi Raja and many
other cases, so the HC erred in making the judgement. The matter was remitted to the HC, to
decide the revision petition.

Priyanka Srivastava: