198 crpc
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 05 January 2012
This query is : Resolved
I need a citation in the matter of under section 494 in which police filed negative report and court took cognizance as warrant case upon police report not as complaint case.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 06 January 2012
& i SEARCH IF ANY PUNISHMENTS 494
Nadeem Qureshi
(Expert) 06 January 2012
Dear querist
as per my view the court have power to accept or denial any police report, even after nagative report of the police or any agency the court can take cognizence.
recently Aarusi Murder case, in which the court take cognizence after nagative report of the CBI.
Nadeem Qureshi
(Expert) 06 January 2012
minu kumari v. state of bihar, 2006 4 scc 259
in this case the court held, the magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the I.O. and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizence of the case, if he thinks fit and exercise his power under section 190(1)(b).
Rajeev Kumar
(Expert) 06 January 2012
All the experts have replied well
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 06 January 2012
well advised by Mr.Nadeem
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 06 January 2012
Patna High Court - Orders
Rajendra Singh @ Rajendra Prasad ... vs State Of Bihar on 30 June, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.7863 of 2007
RAJENDRA SINGH @ RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
For the petitioner : M/S Ajay Thakur and
Amit Kumar, Advocates.
For the State : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2: None
--------
ORDER
The petitioner , one of the accused of Noorsarai P.S. Case no.172 of 2005, through this application under Section-482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of order dated 21.8.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif whereby he has been pleased to differ with the final form submitted by the police and has taken cognizance under Sections-420,406,409, 120B I.P.C. At the very outset, it may be stated that although notice was directly served on the informant, Subodh Singh, impleaded as Opp.Party no.2 herein, yet curiously he has chosen not to appear and contest this application.
In short , the prosecution case is that Swablambi Dugdh Utpad Sahkari Sahyog Samittee Ltd. was established on 2.8.2002, bearing Registration No.B.R. 010201M.259/2000. It is stated that the informant was elected as the Chairman of the said Samittee on 22.1.2005 .On 13.7.2005 a sum of Rs.48,000/- was illegally withdrawn by Rajendra Prasad Singh and Vijay Yadav, two members -2-
of the Samittee from the account of the Samittee , bearing Account no.3791 in connivance with the Branch Manager of the Bank, specially when the Account was to be operated jointly by the Chairman of the Samittee and its Secretary , Rajendra Prasad Singh. The Complaint filed by the Complainant was sent to the police under Section-156(3) Cr.P.C. on the basis whereof the instant Noorsarai Police Station Case came to be registered. It transpires that the police after due investigation submitted a final form, but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate differing with the final report submitted by the police took cognizance against three of the accused named in the complaint petition including the petitioner. Power under Section-482 Cr.P.C. is conferred upon the High Courts to exercise inherent powers ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone , it exists or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. In other words, inherent power can be exercised to give effect to an order under the Court to secure the ends of justice .However, the Hon'ble Apex Court has times without number cautioned the High Courts to exercise this power sparingly, carefully and with circumspection. It goes without saying and is settled principle of law that after the Police investigation, the matter is to be decided by a court of law. In Abhinandan Jha -Vrs. Dinesh Mishra ( AIR 1968 SC 117), it was laid down that the function of the Magistracy and the -3-
Police are entirely different and though the Magistrate may or may not accept the report and take suitable action according to law , he cannot impinge upon the jurisdiction of the police by compelling them to change their opinion. However, that does not mean that the Magistrate is absolutely powerless and it is open to him to differ from the final report submitted by the police , take cognizance of an offence and proceed according to law.
Admittedly, there is no obligation on the Magistrate to accept the report, if he does not agree with the opinion formed by the police. The power to take cognizance notwithstanding formation of the opinion by the police, which is the final stage in the investigation has been provided for in Section-190(1)(c) Cr.P.C,.
Then again in Minu Kumari -Vrs. State of Bihar, reported in (2006) 4SCC, 359 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in paragraph-11 which reads as follows:
" ------------ The position is, therefore, now well settled that upon receipt of a police report under Section-173(2) a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence under Section-190(1)(b) of the Code, even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused. The Magistrate can take into account the statements of the witnesses examined by the police during the investigation and take cognizance of the offence complained of and order the issue of process to the accused. Section-190(1)(b) does not lay down that a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only if -4-
the Investigating Officer gives an opinion that the investigation has made out a case against the accused. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, exercise his powers under Section-190(1) (b) and direct the issue of process to the accused." In the said Judgment, It was also observed
"--------- All Courts , whether civil or criminal possess , in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit , concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest." And again
"--------- Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse-------" In the instant case merely because the Magistrate has differed from the final report submitted by the police after due investigation cannot by itself be said to be an abuse of the process of the court. At this stage, we are not required to look into the defence propounded by the petitioner which can only be looked into in course of the trial. If the Magistrate has found sufficient materials for proceeding further with the case and has taken cognizance of the offences, this Court in exercise of powers under Section-482 Cr.P.C. cannot quash such orders. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and for the reasons -5-
discussed above I do not find any merit in this application, which is dismissed.
(Abhijit Sinha,J)
Patna High Court
Dated : the July 4th ,2008.
Nawal Kishore Singh, A.F.R.
-tom-
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 06 January 2012
i just posting nadeem sir's mentioned case only., so dear author just thank to mr.nadeem..
-tom-
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 06 January 2012
However, it is a non-cognizable case, in which unless the magistrate is satisfied, no prosecution lies.
It is triable as warrant case only.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 06 January 2012
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 299 OF 2003
MANJU RAM KALITA .... Appellant Versus
STATE OF ASSAM .... Responden
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 10 January 2012
Dont answer in a hurry.
I request the experts plz read again the query and answer keeping in view the provisions of 198 Cr.P.C.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 10 January 2012
If the police files the final report, the magistrate is having two choices:-
1. order for reinvestigation
2. taking up the case as private complaint based on the protest petition if any.
The magistrate is not having any power to compel the police to file the charge sheet. So there is no citation is available for this case.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 15 January 2012
You have not mentioned section 198 criminal procedure code at any place in your query.
