Team  SoOLEGAL

Examining the Complainant is not required before Ordering Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPc

Team SoOLEGAL 29 Jul 2021 4:27pm

Examining the Complainant is not required before Ordering Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPc

The Apex Court has reemphasized that examination of complainant is not necessary on oath under Section 200 CrPc in the presence of a Judicial Magistrate once police investigation is ordered under Section 156(3) CrPc.

The court while upholding so, quashed a judgement passed by the Bombay HC. According to the order an anticipatory bail was granted on the ground that the Magistrate directed registration of FIR under Section 156(3) CrPc without examining the complainant in compliance with Section 200 CrPc.

The Supreme Court dismissed High Court’s view stating that it is not lawfully correct to follow the procedure under Section 200 before Section 156(3).

A precedent was mentioned by the bench which held that Section 156(3) is a pre-cognizance phase. The bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah pronounced the judgment in the case of M/s Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra and anr. with a few more cases.

In the instant case, the appeals were filed against the Bombay HC’s judgement passed on 18th December 2017, which was overturned by the Supreme Court based on previously settled principles. The bench quoted, Any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein.” from the judgement of Suresh Chand Jain v. State of MP (2001) 2 SCC 628.

The same principles was being followed in cases of Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi (2007) 12 SCC 641, Tilak Nagar Industries Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011) 15 SCC 57, etc.
The court held that the High Court did not refer to the above-mentioned judgements, otherwise the bail would not have been granted on contradicting principles.

The court further observed that since misappropriation and grave allegation of funds were involved, granting anticipatory bail was erroneous. Supreme Court while dismissing the order of High Court stated that The High Court has erred both in law and in its evaluation of the facts.”



Tagged: Apex Court   Judicial Magistrate   Section 156(3)   Bombay HC   FIR   Supreme Court   High Court   Justice DY Chandrachud   Justice MR Shah   Delhi  
Did you find this write up useful? YES 3 NO 0
Featured Members view all

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com