1) Supreme Court: How BNSS Modernizes Section 156(3) CrPC: Key Changes and Implications
35. Further, by requiring the Magistrate to consider the submissions made by the concerned police officer before proceeding to issue directions Under Section 175(3), BNSS has affixed greater accountability on the police officer responsible for registering FIRs Under Section 173. Mandating the Magistrate to consider the submissions of the concerned police officer also ensures that the Magistrate applies his mind judicially while considering both the complaint and the submissions of the police officer thereby ensuring that the requirement of passing reasoned orders is complied with in a more effective and comprehensive manner.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 352/2020
Decided On: 16.01.2025
Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Citation: MANU/SC/0134/2025, 2025 INSC 139.
https://www.lawweb.in/2025/03/supreme-court-how-bnss-modernizes.html
2) Supreme Court: Magistrate's Order U/S. 156(3) CrPC For registration of FIR is Not Vitiated Merely Because Complainant Didn't Avail Remedy Under S.154(3)
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.18084 OF 2024
ANURAG BHATNAGAR & ANR. Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Author: PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
Citation: 2025 INSC 895.
https://www.lawweb.in/2025/07/supreme-court-magistrates-order-us-1563.html
3) From Judicial Interpretation to Statutory Law: Section 156 CrPC and S 175 of BNSS, 2023
4) Section 156(3) of CR.P.C vs. Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S : A Comparative Analysis of Procedural Changes
5) Supreme Court: What precautions the Magistrate should take before ordering investigation U/S 156(3) of CRPC{S 175 of BNSS}?
25. In fact, the Magistrate ought to direct investigation by the police only where the assistance of the Investigating Agency is necessary and the Court feels that the cause of justice is likely to suffer in the absence of investigation by the police. The Magistrate is not expected to mechanically direct investigation by the police without first examining whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, investigation by the State machinery is actually required or not. If the allegations made in the complaint are simple, where the Court can straightaway proceed to conduct the trial, the Magistrate is expected to record evidence and proceed further in the matter, instead of passing the buck to the Police Under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure{S 175 of BNSS}. Ofcourse, if the allegations made in the complaint require complex and complicated investigation which cannot be undertaken without active assistance and expertise of the State machinery, it would only be appropriate for the Magistrate to direct investigation by the police authorities. The Magistrate is, therefore, not supposed to act merely as a Post Office and needs to adopt a judicial approach while considering an application seeking investigation by the Police.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 352/2020
Decided On: 16.01.2025
Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Citation: MANU/SC/0134/2025, 2025 INSC 139.
https://www.lawweb.in/2025/03/supreme-court-what-precautions.html
5) Important provisions of BNSS regarding information to police, investigation U/S 175 of BNSS, and cognizance of offence by Magistrate
6) Supreme Court Mandates Preliminary Inquiry Before FIR On Certain Offences Related To Speech & Expressions
Therefore, when the commission of cognizable offences is alleged, where punishment is for imprisonment up to 7 years, which is based on spoken or written words, it will always be appropriate to exercise the option Under Sub-section (3) of Section 173 and conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case to proceed. If an option Under Sub-section (3) is not exercised by the police officer in such a case, he may end up registering an FIR against a person who has exercised his fundamental right Under Article 19(1)(a) even though Clause (2) of Article 19 is not attracted. If, in such cases, the option Under Sub-section (3) of Section 173 is not exercised, it will defeat the very object of incorporating Sub-section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS and will also defeat the obligation of the police Under Article 51-A(a). {Para 29}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 1545 of 2025
Decided On: 28.03.2025
Imran Pratapgadhi Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/0408/2025,2025 INSC 410.
https://www.lawweb.in/2025/04/supreme-court-mandates-preliminary.html
No comments:
Post a Comment