Skip to main content

pleminary enquiry before registering FIR

                               SHORT NOTE ON LEGAL OPINION

FACTS:

Jyoti is in matrimonial disharmony. She has lodged the complaint against her husband & in laws for cruelty under section 498A, which is a cognizable offence. But the police did not register the F.I.R..

ISSUE:

Can police withhold F.I.R. for the preliminary enquiry.

LEGAL ASPECT:

Inquiry means every enquiry other than trial conducted under the Code of Criminal Procedure by a magistrate or Judge under Section 2 (1) (g) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The provision of inquiry by magistrate into cause of death, where:

  1. Any person dies or disappear

  2. Rape is alleged to have been committed on any women

In the case of Manubhai Ratilal Patel V. State of Gujrat & others (2013) Supreme Court held that investigation by police is neither any inquiry not trial. The provision for investigation preliminary inquiry mentioned under section 157 of Code of Criminal Procedure, from the information received by the police In Charge of Police station to a report of the same to a magistrate empowered to take the cognizance of such offence. if the case is not serious in nature, police need not to proceed to make investigation. The power of magistrate to hold investigation on receiving report of cognizable offence may direct investigation under section 159 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure stated the provision for the examination of complaint file in the court instead of Police station. The court has the power to conduct inquiry into any offence in relation to the proceeding in that court or in respect of a document or evidence produced in the court under section 340 of Code of Criminal procedure. 

WITH REFERENCE TO INDIAN CONSTITUTION:

There are some Article that explain about the supremacy of the central law making body Parliament and virtue of Law declared by the Supreme Court of India. The law made by Parliament shall be prevailed over law made by the state legislature under Article 254 (1) of the Constitution. Under Article 141 of the constitution law declared by the Supreme Court to be binding on all the Courts within the territory of India.

JUDGEMENTS:

In the case of Abhijit Pawar V. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar & another (2017) & Pepsi Food Ltd. & another V. Special Judicial Magistrate & others (1998) Supreme Court held that holding enquiry is Mandatory further reflect application of  mind in case of filing complaint in the Court. 

PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY:

The concept of Preliminary enquiry comes from the ruling of the Supreme Court. In the case of Lalita Kumari V. State of U.P. (2013) a bench of 5 judges in the Supreme Court held that registration of F.I.R. is mandatory and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in the case of Cognizable offences. Preliminary enquiry may be allowed to be conduct which will depend upon the facts of the cases.

There is no hard & fast rule to determine which case undergoes Preliminary enquiry but there are some cases where preliminary enquiry is mandatory. In  the case of Matrimonial disputes or Family disputes referring to Preeti Gupta & Another V. State of Jharkhand (2010) where Supreme Court remark that there are number of cases which has been filed with mala fide intention & with oblique motive. Law commission of India Report No. 243 stated that there are multiple time people misusing section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 with alter motive and personal advantage. In order to protect the innocent preliminary enquiry shall be conduct by the Police. Court decide whether F.I.R. is mandatory or Preliminary enquiry shall be conducted. Preliminary enquiry shall be done on the discretion of police. F.I.R. in the cases of commercial offences referring to V.Y. Jose V. State of Gujarat (2008) Supreme Court held that Disputes related to civil offences should not be allowed to be the subject matter of Criminal offences. In cases of Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Gujarat (2015) Supreme Court held that commercial offences has been put in the category of cases where F.I.R. may not be warranted without enquiry. In the case of Medical Negligence referring to Jacob Mathew V. State of Punjab (2005) Supreme Court held that there is a need for the protecting Doctors from frivolous or unjust prosecutions. The investigation officer should conduct enquiry before proceeding & executive guidelines needed to be framed in consultation with Medical Council of India. In the cases of corruption referring to Shashikant V. CBI (2006) Supreme Court held that preliminary enquiry shall be conducted before proceeding by the CBI manual. F.I.R. in the cases of Delay reporting referring to State of A.P. V. M. Madhusudhan Rao (2008) Supreme Court held that it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactory explanation. 

Recently in the case of State of Telangana V. Mangipet @ Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy (2019) Supreme Court held that there is no set format in which a preliminary enquiry is to be conducted. The intention of the enquiry is not to initiate frivolous. The Court does not state that proceedings cannot be initiated against an accused without conducting a preliminary enquiry. 

The legislation allow preliminary enquiry to be completed within 7 days, if not reason for delay shall be mentioned in the report book. After the enquiry if police think that the offence in not a cognizable offence and they are not able to register F.I.R., police need to inform the complainant about such situation within 7 days. 

CONCLUSION: 

In provision of law there is no section that authorize police to conduct preliminary enquiry. In addition to the fact Supreme Court ruling say preliminary enquiry is not a rule but an exception. 

OPINION:

As Jyoti Approch Police for registering F.I.R. against her husband & his family. Jyoti file complaint under section 498A of Indian Penal Code which is a cognizable & non Bailable offence. As far as case concern it is a criminal matter & matrimonial issue has been involved. Preliminary enquiry shall be conducted before proceeding and police should take immediate action. Registration of F.I.R. is mandatory in the cases of Cognizable offences and court will decide whether preliminary enquiry is needed or prima facie has been establish to begin proceeding.

 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more