CR.P.C. CASE LAWS
The State of Bihar vs Chandra Bhushan
Singh & Ors. AIR 2001 Supreme Court
429
Cr.P.C. S.2(d) Charge sheet by RPF officer
for offence under Railway Property Act can
be treated as complaint of the RPF
Attiq-Ur-Rehman Vs.Municipal
Corporation of Delhi and
anotherAIR1996SC1267
Cr.P.C. S.4 In absence of special court the
regular court can try the offence
Thomas DanaVs.The State of
PunjabAIR1959SC375
Cr.P.C. S.4 The words Punishment and
Penalty are explained in
Republic of Italy thr. Ambassador and
Ors.Vs.Union of India (UOI) and
Ors.2013(1)SCALE462
Cr.P.C. S.4 Union Govt was directed to
constitute special court
Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patelvs.The State of
Gujarat and Anr.AIR2001SC567
Cr.P.C. S.4(2) When the special statute does
not prescribe procedure Cr.P.C. is applicable
In Re_ Sikandarkhan Mahomedkhan
1920(22)BOMLR200
Cr.P.C. S.9 Additional Sessions Judge can
hear appeal
EmperorVs.Lakshman Chavji
NarangikarAIR1931Bom313
Cr.P.C. S.9(3) 194 and 409 Assistant and
Additional Sessions Judges exercise
jurisdiction of Sessions Court but they are
separate Courts
Praphakar Vs. The State of Maha 2012
Cri.L.J.4726
Cr.P.C. S.28 Assistant Sessions Judge should
not be allotted with case punishable with
more than 10 years
Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel vs The State Of
Gujarat AIR 2001 SC 567
Cr.P.C. S.29 and S.138 NI Act Magistrate
has no pecuniary limit for compensation
Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel vs The State Of
Gujarat AIR 2001 SC 567
Cr.P.C. S.29 Magistrate has no pecuniary
limit for compensation
Shidlingappa
GurulingappaVs.EmperorAIR1926Bom416
Cr.P.C. S.31 Aggregate fine should be
considered for the purpose of appeal
Chatar Singh vs State Of
M.P.AIR2007SC319
Cr.P.C. S.31 Aggregate sentence not to
exceed 14 years when consecutive SC says
Hariom @ Kalicharan Shiriram and anr Vs.
the State of Maharashtra 1994(2) Bom
C.R.219
Cr.P.C. S.31 and 427(1) Accused convicted
in 3 cases His sentence of 22 years brought
down by giving concurrence in two cases
Emperor vs Piru Rama Havaldar27
BOMLR 1371
Cr.P.C. S.31 and IPC S.71 separate sentences
are subject to the provisions of Section 71,
Indian Penal Code
Jagat Bahadur Singh Jagat Bahadur
SinghVs.State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR
1966 SC 945
Cr.P.C. S.31 Appellate court can inflict the
Trial Court's limited punishment only
Reg.Vs.Tukaya Bin TamanaILR1875 1
Bom 214
Cr.P.C. S.31 For S.457 and 380 IPC
Sentence may be either for both or for one
but should not greater
Sunil Anandrao Sawant vs Government Of
Maharashtra 2010CriLJ3579
Cr.P.C. S.31 Separate sentence to run
consecutive after life has been discussed
Nanak ChandVs.The State of
PunjabAIR1955SC274
Cr.P.C. S.34 AND 149 Distinction is
explained
detention D.K. Basu Vs State of West
Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610
Cr.P.C. S.41 and Constitution A.21
Directions w.r.t. arrest and
R.P. VaghelaVs.State of
Gujarat2002CriLJ3082
Cr.P.C. S.41 and Contempt of Courts Act
S.10 Mere handcuffing without prior
permission, in justifiable circumstances does
not amount to contempt
Afak Shabbir Khan vs The State Of
Maharashtra & Anr
2013BomCR(Cri)242(DB)
Cr.P.C. S.41 Mentioning reasons in the arrest
panchanama is held sufficient compliance of
recording reasons for arrest
Arnesh KumarVs.State of
BiharAIR2014SC2756
Cr.P.C. S.41(1) and 41A and S.498A of IPC
Directions to police and Magistrates
ManikandanVs.S. I. of Police, Nallalam
Police Stn2008CriLJ1338
Cr.P.C. S.41(1)(d) Accused needs to bailed
or not is discussed
Joginder KumarVs.State of U.P. and
Ors.(1994)4SCC260
Cr.P.C. S.56(1) Magistrate to ensure
compliance of directions given
Jayendragiri Anandgiri
GoswamiVs.Narcotics Control Bureau and
Anr.2005CriLJ3190
Cr.P.C. S.57 Accused in NCB custody
arrested in another crime should be produced
before magistrate within 24 hours
Gajanan P. Lasure Vs. The Director
General of Police and ors 2009(4)
Mh.L.J.399
Cr.P.C. S.57 and deemed suspension of
accused public servant
Raghuvansh Dewanchand BhasinVs.State
of Maharashtra and AnrAIR2011SC3393
Cr.P.C. S.70 and 71 No Arrest on cancelled
warrant. Warrant register be maintained
State Through Cbi vs Dawood Ibrahim
Kaskar AIR1997SC2494
Cr.P.C. S.73 Warrant can be issued before
charge sheet and for investigation purpose
Shaikh RahemanVs.State of
Maharashtra1991(1)BomCR263
Cr.P.C. S.79 Magistrate can issue warrant for
execution beyond his local jurisdiction
M.P. Sharma and Ors.Vs.Satish
ChandraAIR1954SC300
Cr.P.C. S.93 and 94 Search and Seizure from
accused not violative of fundamental rights
State of GujaratVs.Shyamlal Mohanlal
Choksi MANU-SC-0383-1964
Cr.P.C. S.94 is not applicable to accused
State of Gujarat Vs. Shyamlal Mohanlal
Choksi AIR 1965 SC 1251
Cr.P.C. S.94(1) Power to issue summons to
produce document is not applicable to
accused
Pravinsingh and anotherVs.Biharilal Singh
and another 1989 Cri LJ 1386) (Bom)
Cr.P.C. S.97 Search can be conducted in a
place other than mentioned in warrant
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil and
Another, 2001 Cri.L.J. 504
Cr.P.C. S.100 and S.27 Evi Act Witnesses
not required
Khet SinghVsUnion of India
(UOI)AIR2002SC1450
Cr.P.C. S.100 Seizure panchanama prepared
at customs office instead of spot did not
cause prejudice Hence relied
State Of Maharashtra & Ors.Vs.Sudhir
Vasant Karnataki Etc. Etc.MANU-SCOR-
47069-2014
Cr.P.C. S.100 Whether immovable property
is included or not referred to larger bench
State Govt. of NCT of DelhiVs.Sunil and
Another2001CriLJ504
Cr.P.C. S.100(5) and Evi Act S.27 Witnesses
is not required
Bombay HC Full bench Sudhir Vasant
KarnatakiVs.The State of Maharashtra
2011 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 326 _ 2011 ALL
MR (Cri) 96
Cr.P.C. S.102(1) Property does not include
immovable property
Sunder Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh
AIR1956SC411
Cr.P.C. S.103 Applicable to search of a place
and not of a person. Hence, independent
witnesses not necessary
Suresh NandaVs.C.B.I.AIR2008SC1414 Cr.P.C. S.104 Passport can be impounded by
Passport Authority and not by Police
The State of Maharashtra and
Anr.Vs.Mangali Dewaiyya
Pupalla1994MhLJ483
Cr.P.C. S.107 and 116 No provision to ask
for interim bond
Rajesh Suryabhan NayakVs.The State of
Maharashtra2006(5)MhLj243
Cr.P.C. S.107 and 123 No interim bond and
CJM reduced bond
Pramila Navin ShahVs.State of
Maharashtra &
Ors2005(15)CriminalCC1051
Cr.P.C. S.107 No provision to ask for interim
bond
Dattatraya Mahadu TikkalVs.The State of
Maharashtra2014(1)BomCR(Cri)439
Cr.P.C. S.107 Sessions Judge has to interfere
if action is illegal
Pravin Vijaykumar Taware,Vs.The Special
Executive Magistrate
2009(111)BOMLR3166
Cr.P.C. S.116 Training to Executive
Magistrates directed by High Court
Rajesh Suryabhan NayakVs.The State of
Maharashtra, 2006(5)MhLj243
Cr.P.C. S.123(2) and (3) CJM exercised
jurisdiction
Noor Saba Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Quasim
AIR 1997 SC 3280
Cr.P.C. S.125 and S.3 of MWPOD Act
Rights of mior children and unmarried
daughter are protected
Mohd. Ahmed KhanVs.Shah Bano Begum
and OrsAIR1985SC945
Cr.P.C. S.125 applicable to Muslim divorced
women also
Allabuksh Karim ShaikhVs.Smt.
Noorjahan Allabuksh Shaikh and
another1994MhLJ1376
Cr.P.C. S.125 application for muslim child is
tenable
Smt. Saroj Govind Mukkawar Vs.Smt.
Chandrakalabai Polshetwar
2009(4)MhLj665
Cr.P.C. S.125 Daughter in law was directed
to maintain mother in law
Nandlal Wasudeo BadwaikVs.Lata Nandlal
Badwaik and Anr.AIR2014SC932
Cr.P.C. S.125 DNA Test prevails over the
presumption
Bakulabai and Anr.Vs.Gangaram and
Anr.(1988)1SCC537
Cr.P.C. S.125 Illegitimate child is entitled for
maintenance
Jaiminiben Hirenbhai VyasVs.Hirenbhai
Rameshchandra VyasDecided On_
19.11.2014
Cr.P.C. S.125 Judgment shall contain reasons
for finding for grant of maintenance from the
date of application
Jagdish JugtawatVs.Manju Lata and
Ors.(2002)5SCC422
Cr.P.C. S.125 Maintenance by Family Court
to major daughter was upheld
Shivaji Baburao Bhabad @ Bhawad
Vs.Sau. Alka Shivaji Bhabad Criminal
Writ Petition No. 955 of 2009 decided on
14.01.2010
Cr.P.C. S.125 Major son is not entitled for
maintenance
Jagir SinghVs.Ranbir Singh and
Anr.AIR1979SC381
Cr.P.C. S.125 Major son though student is
not entitled for maintenance from father
Chinnappaiyan ChellandiVs.Chinnathayee
Chinnappaiyan2010(1)Crimes835
Cr.P.C. S.125 Permission granted to amend
petition
Sau. Manda R. Thaore Vs. Sh. Ramaji
Ghanshyam Thaore Criminal Revision
Application No. 317-2006Decided On_
20.04.2010
Cr.P.C. S.125 Second wifes maintenance
rejected but compensation granted in revision
Syed Mohsin Ali Syed Shaukat AliVs.Smt.
Noorus Saher MANU-MH-0996-2005
Cr.P.C. S.125 Talaq must be for reasonable
cause and be preceded by attempts at
reconciliation
Savitaben Somabhai BhatiyaVs.State of
Gujarat and Ors.AIR2005SC1809
Cr.P.C. S.125 Woman married by Hindu man
having living spouse is not entitled for
mainteance
Shantha @ Ushadevi and Anr.Vs.B.G.
ShivananjappaAIR2005SC2410
Cr.P.C. S.125(3) Successive applications are
unnecessary and Limitation is not barred
when the arrears upto date are included by
interim application
Rajesh Bhiwaji NandeVs.State of
Maharashtra and Ors.2005(2)MhLj977
Cr.P.C. S.125(3) Successive orders of one
month imprisonment upheld
Dalip SinghVs.RajbalaII(2007)DMC273 Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Adultery defence not
applicable after divorce
Dalip SinghVs.RajbalaII(2007)DMC273 Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Adultery not applicable to
divorcee
Gita Vs. Chandrasekhar Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Divorced on cruelty ground
is till entitled for maintenance
M. Chinna
KaruppasamyVs.Kanimozhi2015ALLMR(
Cri)615
Cr.P.C. S.125(4) includes adultery by
divorced wife
Chanda Preetam WadateVs.Preetam
Ganpatrao Wadate 2002(2)MhLj482
Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Isolated instance of adultery
is not sufficient to deny maintenance
Vanamala (Smt)Vs.H.M. Ranganatha
Bhatta(1995)5SCC299
Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Wife does not include
divorcee
Ashok Yeshwant SamantVs.Smt. Suparna
Ashok Samant and another1991CriLJ766
Cr.P.C. S.127(1) Precondition to deposit
arrears cannot be put
Ahmed Noormohmed BhattiVs.State of
Gujarat and Ors.AIR2005SC2115
Cr.P.C. S.151 is not ultravires merely
because it can be misused
Rajesh Ramrao Raut Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Ors. 2003 Cri.L.J
Cr.P.C. S.151(3)_
Anju ChaudharyVs.State of U.P. and
Anr.2013CriLJ776
Cr.P.C. S.154 and 156(3) If the offence is
same there cannot be two FIRs. Magistrate
can treat application as a complaint
Satvinder Kaur Vs.State (Govt. of N.C.T.
of Delhi)AIR1999SC3596
Cr.P.C. S.154 and 177 The IO can forward
the FIR to the police station having
jurisdiction if the offence was beyond own
jurisdictiono
UshabenVs.Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada
and Ors.2012ACR1859
Cr.P.C. S.154 and 198A Police can
investigate S.494 with 498A of IPC as
S.498A is cognizable
GaneshaVs.Sharanappa and
anr.AIR2014SC1198
Cr.P.C. S.154 and 354 The person who
lodges the FIR be called the Informant and
not the Complainant
M. Narayandas vs State Of Karnataka And
Ors.,2004 Cri.L.J. 822,
Cr.P.C. S.154 FIR reasonableness or
Credibility of the said information is not a
condition precedent for registration of a case
BabubhaiVs.State of Gujarat and
Ors.(2010)12SCC254
Cr.P.C. S.154 For deciding tenability of two
FIRs sameness test should be applied
Ashi Devi and Ors.Vs.State (NCT of
Delhi)MANU-SC-0526-2014
Cr.P.C. S.154 In a 9 years old theft case held
that mere delay itself is not a ground to
discard a case
Gosu Jayarami Reddy Vs. State of A.P.
(2011) 11 SCC 766
Cr.P.C. S.154 Overwriting limited to
converting 4 to 5 in FIR is immaterial.
GaneshaVs.Sharanappa and
anr.2014(11)SCALE541
Cr.P.C. S.154 Person who lodges FIR is
called Informant and who files complaint is
called complainant
Mrs. Charu Kishor Mehta and etc.Vs.State
of Maharashtra and Anr.2011CriLJ1486
Cr.P.C. S.154 Police cannot refuse to register
the F.I.R. under the pretext of preliminary
inquiry when cognizable offences are made
out
KumariVs.Govt. of U.P. and
Ors.2014CriLJ470
Cr.P.C. S.154 Police is bound to register
F.I.R. Lalita
Satish Narayan SawantVs.State of
Goa2009CriLJ4655
Cr.P.C. S.154 police officer going to the
place of occurrence to make some survey
does not amount to making an investigation
doc.
Mrs. Charu Kishor MehtaVs.State of
Maharashtra and Addl. Commissioner of
PoliceDecided On_ 00.11.2010
Cr.P.C. S.154 Police shall register FIR
instead of ignoring as civil dispute
Sone Lal And Ors AIR 1978 SC 1142 Cr.P.C. S.154 Recording FIR is an official
act and has such presumption
Charu Kishor Mehta and etc. etc.Vs.State
of Maharashtra and Anr.2011CriLJ1486
Cr.P.C. S.154 Reliability genuineness and
credibility of the information are not the
conditions precedent Mrs.
Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and Ors. vs.
State of Karnataka and Ors
Cr.P.C. S.154
M. Narayandas vs State Of Karnataka And
Ors.,2004 Cri.L.J. 822
Cr.P.C. S.154 Sections 195 and 340 do not
come in the way of investigation by police.
On the basis of such investigation the Court
can file a complaint
Surender Kaushik and Ors.Vs.State of
Uttar Pradesh and Ors.AIR2013SC3614
Cr.P.C. S.154 There cannot be two FIRs of
the same person of same incident
Surender Kaushik and Ors.Vs.State of
Uttar Pradesh and Ors.AIR2013SC3614
Cr.P.C. S.154 When a FIR is already there
sameness test shall be used for the
subsequent FIRs
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan
Lal And Ors1992 AIR 604
Cr.P.C. S.154 When can the Court pass
appropriate orders
Satish Narayan SawantVs.State of
Goa2009CriLJ4655
Cr.P.C. S.154 When information was cryptic
the police officer going to the place of
occurrence to make some survey is not an
investigation
Pravin Chandra ModyVs.State of Andhra
PradeshAIR1965SC1185
Cr.P.C. S.155 Police can investigate a non-
cognizable offence under EC Act along with
S.420 IPC
Dashrath Kishan Kotkar and Anr.Vs.State
of Maharashtra1986MhLJ986
Cr.P.C. S.155(2) and (3) Once permission is
obtained the procedure applicable to
cognazable offences is applicable
Vithal Puna Koli (Shirsath) and Ors. Vs.
The State of Maharashtra-MH-0633-2006
Cr.P.C. S.155(2) Obtaining Magistrate's
permission is necessary
State of Maharashtra vs. Dharmendra
Ambar Mohite (10.09.1998 - BOMHC)
Cr.P.C. S.155(2) permission was not
obtained Hence prosecution for offence of
S.145 Police Act was held untenable
MukhedkarVs.The State of
Maharashtra,1983CriLJ1833
Cr.P.C. S.155(2) Prosecution for S.124 of
Bom Police Act quashed for want of
permission Avinash Madhukar
Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane Vs.Chandrasen
Jagdevrao Deshmuk 2008CriLJ376
Cr.P.C. S.156 and 397 156(3) of Cr.PC
merely mean that an alleged cognizable
offence should be investigated
Atul Son of Shridhar KapleVs.State of
Maharashtra, through Police Station
Officer2011 113 BOMLR1549
Cr.P.C. S.156 S.173(3) and s.190(1)(c).
Sakiri VasuState of U.P. and others and
other cases MANY CASES
Cr.P.C. S.156
Pravin Chandra ModyVs.State of Andhra
PradeshAIR1965SC1185
Cr.P.C. S.156(1) and 173 Police officer can
investigate E.C. Act offence along with
S.420
Sheshrao and Ors.Vs.The State of
Maharashtra and Ors.24.07.2015
Cr.P.C. S.156(1) Charge sheet quashed for
want of jurisdiction
Satvinder Kaur Vs.State (1999)8SCC728 Cr.P.C. S.156(2) Police can investigate any
cognizable offence and to submit charge
sheet before competent court
Alpic Finance Ltd.vsP. Sadasivan and
Anr.AIR2001SC1226
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and IPC S.420 It must also
be shown that there existed a fraudulent and
dishonest intention at the time of commission
of the offence
Vinay TyagiVs.Irshad Ali @ Deepak and
Ors. 2013CriLJ754
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 173(8) Kinds of order
under S.156(3) are (i) Initial Investigation,
(ii) Further Investigation, (iii) Fresh or de
novo or re-investigation-Detail
Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors.Vs.The State of
Assam and Anr.1961CriLJ39(3JJs)
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 190 Passing order of
S.156(3) or Search Warrant is not taking
Cognizance
(R.R. Chari etc followed )Gopal Das
Sindhi and Ors.Vs.The State of Assam and
Anr.1961CriLJ39
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 190 Taking Cognizance
on complaint means verification etc.
Nirmaljit Singh HoonVs.The State of West
BengalAIR1972SC2639
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 200 Cognizance means
not mere applying mind but for the purpose
of proceeding under S.200 and following
privisions
SachinVs.The State of
Maharashtra2014ALLMR(Cri)1833
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 200 Magistrate has
discretion to reject the prayer and direct for
verification etc.
Ramdev Food Products Private LimitedVs.
State of Gujarat2015(3)SCALE622
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 202 No arrest in
investigation of S.202
Raghu Raj Singh RoushaVs.Shivam
Sundaram Promoters ((2009)2SCC363
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 397 Accused shall be
impleaded in a revision against order
refusing S.156
Shivaji Vithalrao BhikaneVs.Chandrasen
Jagdevrao Deshmuk2008CriLJ3761
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 398 Interference in
revision should be in exceptional cases
Vasanti DubeyVs.State ofMadhya
Pradesh2012CriLJ1309
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and S.7 P.C. Act
Syed Muzaffaruddin Khan Mohd. Vs. .
Mohd.Abdul Qadir Mohd. Abdul. 2012
Bom C R(Cri) 375
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and S.195 and S.341
Magistrate can order S.156(3) and after
investigation he can file complaint
Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane Vs.Chandrasen
Jagdevrao Deshmukh2008CriLJ3761
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and S.397 Direction by
sessions judge for sending signature to the
expert set aside
U.P. HC in Chandrika SinghVs.State of
U.P2007CriLJ3169
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) application can be treated as
complaint
Mrs Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State
of UP & Ors2015 (96) SCC 287
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Application should be
supported by affidavit
Shivaji Vithalrao BhikaneVs.Chandrasen
Jagdevrao Deshmukh2008CriLJ3761
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Before the order
complainant cannot be asked to call experto
to prove forgery
Mohd. YousufVs.Smt. Afaq Jahan and
Anr.AIR2006SC705
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Complainant should not be
examined before order under this section
Srinivas Gundluri and
Ors.Vs.SEPCO(2010)8SCC206
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Difference of s.156(3) and
202 Cr.P.C. Mere direction to file charge
sheet not illegal
Upkar SinghVs.Ved Prakash and
Ors.AIR2004SC4320
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Direction to register counter
FIR is valid
Madhubala Vs. Sureshkumar
AIR1997SC3104
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Format of order
Anju ChaudharyVs.State of U.P. and
Anr.2013CriLJ776
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate can treat an
application as a complaint In more than one
FIRs sameness test has to be applied
CBI Central Bureau Of Investigation vs
State Of Gujarat MANU-GJ-0573-2001
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate cannot direct
Central Bureau of Investigation through
S.P., Jaipurvs.State of Rajasthan &
Anr.AIR2001SC668
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate cannot direct the
CBI investigation
K. SelvarajVs.The Superintendent of
Police and The Inspector of Police
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate cannot order
investigation by the CBI
Sachin Raosaheb Jadhav Vs State of
Maharashtra Justice Nalawade
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate has discretion
not to refer to police and to inquire himself
into the application
Sukhwasi son of Hulasi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh 2008 Cri.L.J.472
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate has discretion to
send or not to send for investigation
Nilesh Daulatrao LakhaniVs.State of
Maharashtra2014(4)BomCR(Cri)757
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) No cognizance on police
report after first directing for inquiry
R.P. Kapur vs. S.P. Singh AIR 1961 SC
1117
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) No order to CBI by
Magistrate
Blue Dart Express Ltd.Vs.The State of
Maharashtra2011(2)Crimes46
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) order after verification was
set aside and directed to proceed
Yogiraj Vasantrao SurveVs.State of
Maharashtra2013ALLMR(Cri)2059
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) order can be challenged in
Revision
R.R. Chari Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh,
AIR 1951 SC 207
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Order does not amount to
taking cognizance 3 Judges Bench
Basanthi Sarkar and Ors.Vs.State of West
Bengal and Ors.MANU-WB-0218-2010
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) order in S.193 IPC offence
upheld by Kolkata HC
General Officer CommandingVs.CBI and
Anr.AIR2012SC1890
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) order is not taking
cognizance
Shivaji Vithalrao
BhikaneVs.Chandrasen2008CriLJ3761
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Orders interference by
superior Courts normally be in very
exceptional circumstances
Ajit Ramrao Thete and others Vs. the State
of Maharashtra and another Bombay (DB)
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Original Complaint and
order should be retained in Court
Mohd. YousufVs.Smt. Afaq Jahan and
Anr.2006(1)KLJ380
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Petition's Format and
nomenclature is not material It can be treated
as complaint
Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and
Ors.Vs.State of Karnataka and
Ors.AIR2012SC2326
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Police investigation may
start with registration of FIR while in other
cases (CBI, etc.), an inquiry may lead to
registration of an FIR
Laxminarayan Vishwanath AryaThe State
of Maharashtra through Senior Inspector of
Police and Ors.Vs.2008CriLJ1
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Police need not seek
permission of Magistrate to arrest accused
Raghu Raj Singh RoushaVs.Shivam
Sundaram Promoters (P) L and
Anr.(2009)2SCC363
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Refusing direction for
investigation and direction for verification
and statements is taking cognizance
Karnataka HC Sri. B.V. Acharya, Vs.Sri.
N. Venkateshaiah
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Sanction needed for even
order under section
Mr. Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani, Vs.The
State of Maharashtra 2010 Cri.L.J. 2723
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Simplicitor application
without FIR is tenable
Pinni Co-op Housing Society and others
Maruti Mathu Gaikwad and others Bom
DB dd on 02.07.2013CRAPPLN463510
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) This section cannot be
resorted to after direction to put up for
verification
Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and
Ors.AIR2008SC907
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) When can Magistrate
Monitor investigation
Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat and
Ors.(2008)5SCC668
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) While passing the order the
Magistrate has to apply mind
Rasiklal Dalpatram ThakkarVs.State of
Gujarat and Ors.AIR2010SC715
Cr.P.C. S.156(5) and 181(4) Jurisdiction to
be of the JMFC and not of the PSO
Mr. Panchabhai Popotbhai ButaniVs.The
State of Maharashtra2010CriLJ2723
Cr.P.C. S.156(6) Application without prior
F.I.R. tenable
(2009) 6 SCC 576 Cr.P.C. S.156(6) No inherent power to recall
order
State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance
and Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil
Nadu vs. V. Jayapaul (22.03.2004 -
SC)(2004)5SCC223
Cr.P.C. S.157 No statutory bar to the
informant-police officer for taking up the
investigation
The State of Uttar PradeshVs.Bhagwant
Kishore JoshiAIR1964SC221
Cr.P.C. S.157 and PC Act Investigation can
be started on information or otherwise means
without FIR
S.N. SharmaVs.Bipen Kumar Tiwari and
Ors.AIR1970SC786
Cr.P.C. S.159 does not enable Magistrate to
stop investigation
S.N. SharmaVs.Bipen Kumar Tiwari and
Ors.AIR1970SC786
Cr.P.C. S.159 Gives limited power to
Magistrate to direct investigate proceed
himself but no power to stop investigation
S.N. SharmaVs.Bipen Kumar Tiwari and
Ors.AIR1970SC786
Cr.P.C. S.159 Meant to give Magistrate the
power of directing investigation where the
police decide not to investigate the case
under the proviso to Section 157(1)
Ashok DebbarmaVs.State of
Tripura(2014)4SCC747
Cr.P.C. S.161 and 154 Omission to name
accused when he was part of group is not
fatal
State of N.C.T. of
DelhiVs.Mukesh(2013)2SCC58
Cr.P.C. S.161 and 162 and Evi Act S.145
Statement on TV channel subsequent to
charge sheet is not covered Bipin Panchal
distinguished
Mahesh Janardhan GonnadeVs.State of
Maharashtra(2008)13SCC271
Cr.P.C. S.161 and 164 Testimony of I.O. and
Spl Judl. Magi. cannot be disbelieved and
discredited
Ashok Debbarma @ Achak
DebbarmaVs.State of Tripura
(2014)4SCC747
Cr.P.C. S.161 Every omission is not
contradiction
State of GujaratVs.Kathi Ramku
Aligbhai1986CriLJ239
Cr.P.C. S.161 Inadmissible portions in the
panchana should be marked by the APP and
excluded by the Juge and How to appreciate
witnesses
State of U.P.Vs.M.K.
AnthonyAIR1985SC48.
AnthonyAIR1985SC48
Cr.P.C. S.161 Signature of witness does not
render evidence inadmissible
Nirpal Singh and Ors.Vs.State of
HaryanaAIR1977SC1066
Cr.P.C. S.161 Statement of witness need not
be there in inquest panchanama
Gujarat High Court Full Bench Nathu
ManchhuVs.The State of
Gujarat1978CriLJ448
Cr.P.C. S.161 Statement reading over to
witness does not make his evidence
inadmissible
SureshVs.The State of Maharashtra (DB)
Decided On_ 31.10.2014
Cr.P.C. S.161 Statement should not be read
over to the witness by the police
Md. Ankoos and Ors.Vs.The Public
Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.
AIR2010SC566
Cr.P.C. S.161(3) Statement cannot be used
Dr. Sunil Clifford DanielVs.State of
Punjab(2012)11SCC205
Cr.P.C. S.161_ In view of exception of
S.162(2) to S.161, statement of accused
under S.27 Evi Act need not be signed by
accused.
State of Kerala Vs.Babu &
OrsAIR1999SC2161
Cr.P.C. S.162 and 161 and 91 Magistrate can
call case diary of another case
Mr. Prakash VernekarVs.State of
Goa2007CriLJ4649
Cr.P.C. S.162 and 452 and S.27 not barred
for deciding custody of muddemal
Mr. Prakash Vernekar Vs. State of Goa
2007 Cri.L.J. 4649
Cr.P.C. S.162 and S.27 Statement is not
barred for deciding custody of muddemal
Pakala Narayana
SwamiVs.EmperorAIR1939PC47
Cr.P.C. S.162 Any confession made to a
police officer in course of investigation
whether a discovery is made or not is
excluded
Khatri and Ors.Vs.State of Bihar and
Ors.AIR1981SC1068
Cr.P.C. S.162 Bar is not applicable in civil or
other proceeding
Tahsildar Singh and Anr.Vs.The State of
Uttar PradeshAIR1959SC1012
Cr.P.C. S.162 Contradictions an omissions
Ramkishan Mithanlal SharmaVs.The State
of BombayAIR1955SC104
Cr.P.C. S.162 covers statements to police
during TIP
George & Ors vs State Of Kerala (1998) 4
SCC 605
Cr.P.C. S.162 Statement of I.O. in the
inquest what he saw is admissible
State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere
PoliceVs.Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna
2014(3)BomCR(Cri)98
(2014(3)BomCR(Cri)98)
Cr.P.C. S.164 and IPC S.376 Directions to
Police and Magistrates
Cr.P.C. S.164 and S.30 Evi Act Recording
confession by other than jurisdiction
Magistrate upheld
AIR1981SC1165 Cr.P.C. S.164 and S.80 Evidence Act SC
says Magistrate need not be examined Madi
Ganga
The State of MaharashtraVs.Prakash
Dhawal Khairnar1997BomCR(Cri)367
Cr.P.C. S.164 Confession
Dhananjaya Reddy etc.vs.State of
KarnatakaAIR2001SC1512
Cr.P.C. S.164 Confession without signature
of accused inadmissible
Abdul Razak ShaikhVs.State of
Maharashtra1987MhLJ863
Cr.P.C. S.164 Signature of accused is
mandatory Bom. DB
Abdul_Razak_Shaikh_vs_State_Of_Mahar
ashtra_on_7_August,_1987
Cr.P.C. S.164 Signature of accused on
confession Mandatory
State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere
PoliceVs.Shivanna @ Tarkari
Shivanna2014ALLMR(Cri)4484(2014)8S
CC913
Cr.P.C. S.164 statement of victim girl should
not be disclosed to any person till final report
State Of Maharashtra vs Sharad B.
Sarda1983 (1) BomCR 578
Cr.P.C. S.167 60th or 90th day though
holiday cannot be excluded
Bom. HC Abdul Wahid Vs State Of
Maharashtra on 27 August 1991
Cr.P.C. S.167 After charge sheet bail under
section 436 or 437 only
Asgar Yusuf Mukadam and Ors.Vs.State of
Maharashtra and The Superintendent of
Prison2004CriLJ4312
Cr.P.C. S.167 Allowing Home Food is in
disreation of Magistrate
Kum. Shraddha Meghshyam Velhal Vs
State of Maharashtra
Cr.P.C. S.167 and 4 and POCSO Act JFCM
has no jurisdiction to remand take
cognizance and commit under PCSO Act
State through C.B.I. Vs.Dawood Ibrahim
Kaskar and othersAIR1997SC2494
Cr.P.C. S.167 and 309 If accused was not
arrested till taking cognizance his remand
can be granted
In Re_ Jakir Khan @ JakerMANU-WB-
0253-2012
Cr.P.C. S.167 and 437 Transit Remand
granted by rejecting bail
Tamizharasi and another Vs.Assistant
Director, Narcotic Control
Bureau1996CriLJ208
Cr.P.C. S.167 and NDPS Act
Bom HC
Daji_Govind_Kamble_vs_State_Of_Mahar
ashtra
Cr.P.C. S.167 and S.36 of NDPS Act
Magistrate remanded for more than 15 days
Bom. HC B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Collector Of
... vs Leidomann Heinrich And Another on
20 November, 1990
Cr.P.C. S.167 bail in serious offences NDPS
can be cancelled
CBI vs. Anupam Kulkarni Cr.P.C. S.167
Bhupinder_Singh_&_Ors_vs_Jarnail_Sing
h_&_Anr_on_13_July,_2006
Cr.P.C. S.167 For S.304B of IPC 90 days SC
Rajeev Chowdhary case referred
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs State Of
Maharashtra on 12 July, 1994
Cr.P.C. S.167 for TADA offences
Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir
KasabVs.State of
MaharashtraAIR2012SC3565
Cr.P.C. S.167 Free legal aid should be
provided from the stage of remand
Khatri And Others vs State Of Bihar
AIR1981SC928
Cr.P.C. S.167 Free Legal aid to be given at
remand stage
G.K._Moopanar,_M.L.A._And_Others_vs
_State_Of_Tamil_Nadu_on_16_March,_19
90
Cr.P.C. S.167
Prasad V.Vs.State of
KeralaILR2013(2)Kerala1010
Cr.P.C. S.167 in POCSO Act offence
Magistrate can entertain first remand
Arnesh KumarVs.State of Bihar
AIR2014SC2756.
Cr.P.C. S.167 In S.498A IPC the Magistrate
authorising detention without recording
reasons is liable for departmental action
Nijamuddin_Mohammad_Bashir_Khan_...
_vs_State_Of_Maharashtra_on_7_July,_20
06
Cr.P.C. S.167 Limitation is 60 days for 10
years imprisonment
Khatri And Others vs State Of Bihar 1981
SCC (1) 627
Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate and Judges shall
inform accused about free legal aid
Harihar Chaitanya vs State Of U.P.1990
CriLJ 2082
Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate can differ with the
I.O.
Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr. Ushaben Vs.
State of Gujarat and ors., AIR 2013 SC 313
Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate has to look into
facts before granting remand
Khatri And Others vs State Of Bihar 1981
SCC (1) 627
Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate is under obligation
to inform availability of free legal aid Free
Legal aid
Mr. Uday Mohanlal AcharyaVs.State of
Maharashtra2001CriLJ4563
Cr.P.C. S.167
StateVs. Santokh SinghAIR43 1956
Madhya Pradesh 13
Cr.P.C. S.167 No police custody of
imprisoned accused
CBI vs. Anupam Kulkarni (1992)3SCC141 Cr.P.C. S.167 PCR should be within the first
Fifteen days only and that period cannot be
extended under any circumstances
Rajeev Chowdhary case referred
Nijamuddin_Mohammad_Bashir_Khan_...
_vs_State_Of_Maharashtra_on_7_July,_20
06
Cr.P.C. S.167 Period is 60 days for S.395
and 366 IPC Bom
Bhupinder_Singh_&_Ors_vs_Jarnail_Sing
h_&_Anr_on_13_July,_2006
Cr.P.C. S.167 Period is 90 days for S.304B
IPC
Devender Kumar Vs. State of Haryana
2010CriLJ3849
Cr.P.C. S.167 Police custody can be in the
first 15 days only. Cancellation of bail set
aside
NarainVs.Superintendent, Central Jail,
New DelhiAIR1971SC178
Cr.P.C. S.167 Remand in absence of accused
who is not produced from jail is not illegal
Raj
Mr. Uday Mohanlal AcharyaVs.State of
Maharashtra2001CriLJ4563
Cr.P.C. S.167 Right to bail is defeated if not
availed already
AIR 1986 Raj 58 (FB) Cr.P.C. S.167 S.309 CJM has district
jurisdiction No bail than Cr.P.C.
Cr.P.C. S.167 S.309 Rajastan FB CJM has
district jurisdiction No bail than Cr.P.C
Arnesh KumarVs.State of
BiharAIR2014SC2756
Cr.P.C. S.167 Supreme Court directions
regarding arrested accused
State of WB Vs. Dinesh Dalmia AIR 2007
SC 1801
Cr.P.C. S.167 Surrender is different from
production by police
State of Maharashtra and Ors.Vs.Saeed
Sohail Sheikh etc.AIR2013SC168
Cr.P.C. S.167 Transfer of Under prisoners to
other jails is subject to Judicial order
Iqbal Kaur Kwatra vs The Director General
Of Police1996 (2) ALT 138 AP High
Court
Cr.P.C. S.167 Transit Remand
Rajeev_Chaudhary_vs_State_(N.C.T.)_Of_
Delhi_on_4_May,_2001
Cr.P.C. S.167(2(
Central Bureau of InvestigationVs.Rathin
Dandapat and Ors.2015(9)SCALE120
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Absconding accused
arrested after charge sheet can be remanded
to PCR
Aslam Babalal DesaiVs.State of
MaharashtraAIR1993SC1
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Accused released on default
ground cannot be arrested on only count of
filing of charge sheet
Sajid Basir ShaikhVs.State of
Maharashtra2005(3)MhLj860
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) After charge sheet Right of
accused is defeated if he fails to exercise
Bashir And Others vs State Of
HaryanaBashir and Ors.Vs.State of
HaryanaAIR1978SC55
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) and 437 Mere filing of
charge sheet not sufficient to cancel bail
B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Collector of
CustomsVs.Mohmed Azan Khan and
others 1990MhLJ582
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) and NDPS Act Limit of 15
days is for police custody and not for other
agency custody
Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak
Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) and S.4(2)_ Magistrate has
jurisdiction to remand in Customs Act case
Sayed Mohd. Ahmed KazmiVs.State,
GNCTD and Ors.AIR2012SC660
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) and Unlawful Activities Act
S.43D Magistrate has to grant default bail
after the 90 days under Unlawful Activities
Act
Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak
Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) appicable to accused
produced by other than police
Union of India (UOI)Vs.Thamisharasi and
Ors.(1995)4SCC190
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) applicable to NDPS Act
Union of India (UOI)Vs.Nirala
YadavAIR2014SC3036
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Application filed for default
bail cannot be rejected due to filing of charge
sheet before decision of bail application
B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Collector Of ... vs
Leidomann Heinrich And Another 1991
CriLJ 552
Cr.P.C. S.167(2)
AnilkumarVs.State of
Maharashtra1990CriLJ2058
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Bail cancelled by sessions
court under section 439(2) in NDPS Case
Bashir_And_Others_vs_State_Of_Haryana
_on_3_October,_1977
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Bail cannot be cancelled on
mere count of filing charge sheet leter on
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs
Anupam J. Kulkarni AIR1992SC1768
Cr.P.C. S.167(2)
Chaganti Satyanarayana and Ors.Vs.State
of Andhra PradeshAIR1986SC2130
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Date of production before
magistrate is starting point
Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak
Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Entry in diary in not a sine
quo non
Nijamuddin Mohammad Bashir Khan and
Anr.Vs.State of
Maharashtra2006CriLJ4266
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) For S.306 IPC period for
filing chargesheet against UTP is 60 days
State of Uttar PradeshVs.Lakshmi
Brahman and Anr.AIR1983SC439
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) From charge sheet till
committal it is inquiry
Bhulabai wdo Barkaji MatreVs.Shankar
Barkaji Matre and others S.167
CRPC1999(3) Mh.L.J. 227
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) If charge sheet is not filed
in time explanation of IO to be called
Sayed Mohd. Ahmed KazmiVs.State,
GNCTD and Ors.AIR2012SC660
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) in Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967
Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak
Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) is applicable to accused
arrested under FERA Act
Jeewan Kumar Raut and Anr.Vs.Central
Bureau of InvestigationAIR2009SC2763
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) is not applicable to offences
under TOHO Act as it provides for complaint
only
Satyajit Ballulbhai Desai and Ors.Vs.State
of GujaratI(2015)CCR321(SC)
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Magistrate has to judicially
scrutinise circumstances and if satisfied order
police custody
Sayed Mohd. Ahmed KazmiVs.State,
GNCTD and Ors.AIR2012SC660
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Magistrate kept application
undecided till charge sheet Held accused is
entitled for bail
Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. Vs.Home
Secretary, State of Bihar,
PatnaAIR1979SC1369
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Magistrate shall inform the
accused about the right to free legal aid and
to provide it
Aslam Babalal DesaiVs.State of
MaharashtraAIR1993SC1
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Merits not be considered
Sajid Basir Shaikh vs SOM2005 (3) MhLJ
860
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Not indefeasible
Umashanker_And_Ors._vs_State_Of_Mad
hya_Pradesh
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Pending bail application
allowed
Nijamuddin Mohammad Bashir Khan and
Anr.Vs.State of
Maharashtra2006CriLJ4266
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Period is 60 days for S.306
IPC
Shakil Khan Yasin KhanVs.The State of
Maharashtra MANU-MH-0047-2014
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Period is 60 days for S.306
IPC
Rajeev Chaudharyvs.State (N.C.T.) of
DelhiAIR2001SC2369
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Period is 60 days for S.386
IPC as punishment does not exceed 10 years
Bhupinder_Singh_&_Ors_vs_Jarnail_Sing
h_&_Anr_on_13_July,_2006
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Period is 90 days for
S.304B IPC
Bhulabai wdo Barkaji MatreVs.Shankar
Barkaji Matre and others S.167
CRPC1999(3) Mh.L.J. 227
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Procedure to be followed by
Magistrate
Rajeev Chaudhary case A Comment Cr.P.C. S.167(2)
Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak
Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Remand under FERA Act
permissible
Palanisamy @ PalaniVs.State rep. by
Inspector of Police2003-1-LW(Crl)239
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Sanction is not part of
investigation Magistrate cannot refuse charge
sheet
Uday Mohanlal Acharyavs.State of
Maharashtra AIR 2001 SC1 910
Cr.P.C. S.167(2)
Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand JainVs.State
of Maharashtra and Anr.(2013)3SCC77
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) When Charge sheet is filed
and Sanction awaited Hence no bail
Nijamuddin_Mohammad_Bashir_Khan_...
_vs_State_Of_Maharashtra_on_7_July,_20
06
Cr.P.C. S.167(2)(a)(ii) 60 days for 10 years
offence
Hussainara Khatoon and Ors.Vs.Home
Secretary, State of Bihar,
PatnaAIR1979SC1377
Cr.P.C. S.167(5) Two options
Abhinandan Jha and Ors.Vs.Dinesh
MishraAIR1968SC117
Cr.P.C. S.169 and 173 Magistrate cannot
direct police to file charge sheet
Rameshbhai Jagjivan Vora Authorised
Signatory of Gaekwad Vs.State of Gujarat
and Ors.2010GLH(2)588
Cr.P.C. S.169 application before magistrate
is not tenable GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Abhinandan Jha and Ors.Vs.Dinesh
MishraAIR1968SC117
Cr.P.C. S.169 Magistrate cannot direct police
to file charge sheet
Mohd. Rafique Abdul Rahman Vs. State of
Maharashtra 2013 Bom.C.R.(Cri) 251
Cr.P.C. S.169 Magistrate does not come in
picture under this section
MarotiVs.The State of Maharashtra and
Ors.2015(4)BomCR(Cri)504
Cr.P.C. S.169 Mere report without final
report under S.173 is not tenable
Mohd. RafiqueVs.State of
Maharashtra2013BomCR(Cri)251
Cr.P.C. S.169 report before Magistration is
not tenable
MarotiVs.The State of
MaharashtraDecided On_ 04.02.2015
Cr.P.C. S.169 Report is report of action taken
by IO and not final report
Kedar Narayan Parida & Ors vs State Of
Orissa & Anr (2009)9SCC538
Cr.P.C. S.169 Report received regarding
some accused. Court can direct investigation
under S.156(3)
The State of BiharVs.Chandra Bhushan
Singh & Ors.AIR2001SC429
Cr.P.C. S.173 and 2(d) A plaint by sub-
inspector of RPF is a complaint and not a
charge sheet
StateVs.Shankar Bhaurao
KhirodeAIR1959Bom437
Cr.P.C. S.173 and Rule 203 of the Bombay
Police Manual, Volume III Summaries A B
and C explained
Union Public Service Commission Vs.S.
Papaiah and othersAIR1997SC3876
Cr.P.C. S.173 Court was not justified in
accepting final report without notice to the
informant
Thana SinghVs.Central Bureau of
Narcotics(2013)2SCC590
Cr.P.C. S.173 Electronic charge sheet -SC
directed to supply copy of charge sheet in
electronic form additionally
Popular MuthiahVs.State represented by
Inspector of Police2006(2)ACR2157(SC)
Cr.P.C. S.173 Options available to
Magistrate
Vinay TyagiVs.Irshad Ali (2013)5SCC762 Cr.P.C. S.173 Reinvestigation and further
investigation is explained in
Abhinandan Jha and Ors.Vs.Dinesh
MishraAIR1968SC117
Cr.P.C. S.173 Report may be one under
section 169 or 170 Magistrate cannot direct
to file charge sheet
Thana SinghVs.Central Bureau of
Narcotics(2013)2SCC590
Cr.P.C. S.173 SC directed to supply copy of
charge sheet in electronic form additionally
Bandi KotayyaVs.State (S.H.O.
Nandigama) and Ors.AIR1966AP377
Cr.P.C. S.173 When cognizance is said to be
taken
Chittaranjan MirdhaVs.Dulal Ghosh and
Anr.(2009)6SCC661
Cr.P.C. S.173(2)(I) Different situations
before Magistrate are discussed
Jakia Nasim Ahesan & Anr. vs State Of
Gujarat AIR 2012 SC 243
Cr.P.C. S.173(2)(i) Magistrate to issue
Notice to the informant if not taking
cognizance
Rama ChaudharyVs.State of
BiharAIR2009SC2308
Cr.P.C. S.173(8) (2 Judges Bench held)
Magistrates prior permission is not required
for further investigation-Reinvestigation is
distinct
Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and ors. Vs.
State of Gujarat (2009)6SCC332
Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Accused directed to appear
for interrogation without being arrested
State through C.B.I. Vs.Dawood Ibrahim
Kaskar and othersAIR1997SC2494
Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Accused subsequently
arrested Magistrate has dicretion to try
together or separately
Hemant Dhasmane vs.Central Bureau of
Investigation and anr.AIR2001SC2721
Cr.P.C. S.173(8) can be triggered by
Magistrate
Hasanbhai Valibhai QureshiVs.State of
Gujarat and Ors.AIR2004SC2078
Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Permits further
investigation, and even dehors any direction
from the Court as such
Ram Lal NarangVs.State (Delhi
Administration)AIR1979SC1791
Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Police has power to further
investigate but to inform and seek formal
permission of Magistrate
Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha
Venkata Vishwandadha Maharaj Vs.State
of Andhra Pradesh & OrsAIR1999SC2332
Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Police should inform the
Magistrate and seek formal permission
Chandra BabuVsState and
Ors.(2015)8SCC774
Cr.P.C. S.173(8)_ Magistrate has jurisdiction
to direct further investigation
Krishna Kumar VariarVs.Share
Shoppe(2010)12SCC485
Cr.P.C. S.177 178 and 181 Objection of
jurisdiction to be raised before summoning
Court
State of Andhra PradeshVs.Cheemalapati
Ganeswara Rao and Anr.AIR1963SC1850
Cr.P.C. S.177 does not govern S.223(d)
Court can try offences committed in same
course of transaction in other jurisdiction
State of Maharashtra Vs.Anjanabai
1997CriLJ2309
Cr.P.C. S.177 does not govern S.223(d)
Court can try offences committed in same
course of transaction in other jurisdiction
Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors.Vs.Inspector of
Police, Chennai and Anr.AIR2004SC4286
Cr.P.C. S.177 Illtreatment took at husbands
place No part of offence at her parents place
Hence complaint returned
Mahender GoyalVs.Messers Kadamba
International2014CriLJ1645
Cr.P.C. S.177 to 186 Complaint returning
procedure laid down by Madras High Court
in
Union of India (UOI) and Anr.Vs.B.N.
Ananthapadmanabhiah etc.1974--
LW(Crl)82 Three judges
Cr.P.C. S.179 Old Act A Magistrate's
jurisdiction is limited to his territorial
jurisdiction
Mrs. Minguelin LoboVs.Smt. Archana
Sawant MANU-MH-1302-2004
Cr.P.C. S.187 If the offence took beyond
jurisdiction, the Magistrate should summon
accused and then transfer
Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs.Rajesh
Agarwal and othersAIR1999SC3499
Cr.P.C. S.187 Power of any Magistrate of the
First Class to take cognizance of the offence
is not impaired by territorial restrictions
Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh
Agarwal and others AIR1999SC3499
Cr.P.C. S.187 power to take cognizance of
the offence is not impaired by territorial
restrictions
Musaraf Hossain KhanVs.Bhageeratha
Engg. Ltd. and Ors.AIR2006SC1288
Cr.P.C. S.188 Convenience of the Victim is
important
UshabenVs.Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada
and Ors.2012ACR1859
Cr.P.C. S.189A IPC Sec.494 cognizable with
S. 498A on police report cognizable
Kishore Kumar Gyanchandani vs G.D.
Mehrotra And Anr. AIR 2002 SC 483
Cr.P.C. S.190 Acceptance of final report
does not debar the Magistrate from taking
cognizance on the basis of the materials
produced in a complaint proceeding.
Uma Shankar Vs.State of Bihar and
Anr.(2010)9SCC479
Cr.P.C. S.190 and 319 Magistrate can take
cognizance against the accused named in FIR
but omitted in the charge sheet
SWIL Ltd. vs. State of Delhi
(2001)6SCC670
Cr.P.C. S.190 At the stage of taking
cognizance there is no question of S.319
Messers
Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors.Vs.The State of
Assam and Anr.1961CriLJ39
Cr.P.C. S.190 Cognizance taking means
SITA case Bombay (DB) State vs
Mainabai AIR 1962 Bom 202
Cr.P.C. S.190 Faulty Investiation not to
vitiate the trial unless there was prejudice
State vs MainabaiAIR 1962 Bom 202 Cr.P.C. S.190 Faulty Investiation not to
vitiate the trial unless there was prejudice
Rakesh & anr Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
2014 STPL(Web) 524 SC
Cr.P.C. S.190 In Sessions cases Magistrate
has to see only sufficient ground for
proceeding and not required to weigh
evidence meticulously SC Nupur
TalwarCentral Bureau of Investigation and
Anr
H.S. BainsVs.State (Union Territory of
Chandigarh)(1980)4SCC631
Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate accepted B final
report but proceded under Ss.200 and 202
and took cognizance-Upheld in
Vijay Kant Thakur and Anr.Vs.Stale of
Bihar and Anr.2010CriLJ4190
Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate can differ with PSO
on police report and issue process for
different sections
Rajinder Prasad vs. Bashir and
ors.AIR2001SC3524
Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate can take
cognizance against other accused on
subsequent date also
Chittaranjan MirdhaVs.Dulal Ghosh and
Anr.(2009)6SCC661
Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate can take
cognizance aginst other than charge sheeted
India_Carat_Pvt._Ltd_vs_State_Of_Karnat
aka_&_Anr_on_15_February,_1989
Cr.P.C. S.190 Notice to informant is
necessary if cognizance is not taken
Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors.Vs.The State of
Assam and Anr.1961CriLJ39(3JJs)
Cr.P.C. S.190 Options to Magistrate
M.C. MehtaVs.Union of India (UOI) and
Ors.(2007)1SCC110
Cr.P.C. S.190 Passing order of S.156(3) or
Search Warrant is not taking Cognizance
H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh Vs.The
State of Delhi AIR 1955 SC 196
Cr.P.C. S.190 Taj corridor case
Rajinder Prasad vs. Bashir and ors. AIR
2001 SC 3524
Cr.P.C. S.190 Trial is not vitiated if the
cognizance is valid
India Carat Pvt. Ltd.Vs.State of Karnataka
and Anr.AIR1989SC885
Cr.P.C. S.190(1)(b) Magistrate can proceed
against accused not charge sheeted
India Carat Pvt. Ltd.Vs.State of Karnataka
and Anr.AIR1989SC885
Cr.P.C. S.190(1)(b) Magistrate can take
cognizance from the material of final report
even if police say no offence madeout
Rattiram and Ors.Vs.State of M.P. through
Inspector of PoliceAIR2012SC1485
Cr.P.C. S.190(1)(b) Options to Magistrate He
can take cognizance from material of final
report even if police say no offence madeout
Ratiram and others Vs State of M.P Cr.P.C. S.193 and SC and ST Act Trial is not
vitiated on mere count that Sessions Court
directly accepted the charge sheet
1999CriLJ4173 Cr.P.C. S.193 and SC ST POA Act Though
case was not committed Cognizance by
Session Trial was not viated
Kishun Singh and Ors.Vs.State of
Bihar(1993)2SCC16
Cr.P.C. S.193 Charge-sheet to be returned to
police for presenting before JMFC for
committal in SC and ST POA Act Referring
Officer
Daulat RamVs.State of
PunjabAIR1962SC1206
Cr.P.C. S.193 On committal Sessions Court
gets jurisdiction to take cognizance against
new accused on same material
M. Narayandas vs State Of Karnataka And
Ors.,2004 Cri.L.J. 822
Cr.P.C. S.195 and IPC s.182 it is incumbent
that a complaint in writing should be made
by the public servant concerned for only
KAMLAPATI TRIVEDI Vs.
RESPONDENT_ STATE OF WEST
BENGAL1979 AIR 777
Cr.P.C. S.195 and S.340 Court can file
complaint on the basis of FIR and
investigation provided 340 is followed
In Re_ Vishwanath M. Hegde
AIR1951Bom289
Cr.P.C. S.195 Attracted for S.211 IPC Held
SC 2_1 in
Mahesh Chand SharmaVs.State of U.P. and
Ors.(2009)15SCC519
Cr.P.C. S.195 Complaint for S.500 IPC
maintenable though the act falls under S.211
IPC also
Syed Muzaffaruddin Khan Mohd. vs
Mohd.Abdul Qadir Mohd. Abdul
Cr.P.C. S.195 No bar to complaint of false
mutation entry outside court
Syed Muzaffaruddin Khan Mohd. vs
Mohd.Abdul Qadir Mohd. Abdul
Cr.P.C. S.195 no bar to S.156
M.L. SethiVs.R.P. Kapur and
Anr.AIR1967SC528
Cr.P.C. S.195 Not a bar to order of S.156(3)
as the bar comes after investigation Then
Court can file complaint
Rama Rao and Anr.Vs.Narayan and
Anr.AIR1969SC724
Cr.P.C. S.195 not bar for S.211 IPC
State of PunjabVs.Brij Lal
PaltaAIR1969SC355
Cr.P.C. S.195 Registrar Co-op societies is
not a Court
Ajaib Singh and Anr. vs. Joginder Singh
and Anr. AIR1968SC1422
Cr.P.C. S.195
State of PunjabVs.Brij Lal
PaltaAIR1969SC355
Cr.P.C. S.195 Successor-in-office a
Magistrate can file a complant. Limitation
under police Act for offence under police Act
only
Nandkishor Laxminarayan Mundhada And
Ors 2008CriLJ990
Cr.P.C. S.195 There can be no objection to
the continuance of proceedings relating to
offences for other than those covered by
Sections 182, 211 and 193 IPC
Iqbal Singh Marwah and
Anr.Vs.Meenakshi Marwah and
Anr.AIR2005SC2119
Cr.P.C. S.195 Will forged prior to production
before court. No bar. Bom says
Abdul Rehman and Ors. vs. K.M. Anees-
ul-Haq 2012CriLJ1060
Cr.P.C. S.195(1) Bars unless the complaint is
by the Court
Kamlapati TrivediVs.State of West
BengalAIR1979SC777
Cr.P.C. S.195(1)(b) attracted for S.211 IPC
Chartered Accountants of IndiaVs.Vimal
Kumar Surana and Anr. (2011) 1 SCC(Cri)
442
Cr.P.C. S.195(1)(b) Complaint by Court
required for S.211 offence on False police
report
M.S. SheriffVs.The State of Madras and
Ors.AIR1954SC397
Cr.P.C. S.195(1)(b)(ii) and 4 Case on police
report is tenable by excluding the offences
which can be taken cognizance on complaint
The Institute of
Durgacharan Naik and Ors.Vs.State of
OrissaAIR1966SC1775
Cr.P.C. S.195(3) Criminal proceedings
should be given precedence and the civil
proceedings should be stayed
State of Maharashtra Vs.Dr. B.K. Subbarao
and another1993CriLJ2984 Overruled
Cr.P.C. S.195Convicted under 353 acquitted
under 186 of IPC
General Officer CommandingVs.CBI and
Anr.AIR2012SC1890
Cr.P.C. S.197 (Overruled) For want of
sanction accused was acquitted instead of
discharge
SC State of Madhya PradeshSheetla Sahai
and Ors.(2009)8SCC617
Cr.P.C. S.197 and P.C. Act S.19 Sanction is
required for taking cognizance and not for
taking charge sheet
State of Kerala Vs.V. Padmnabhan
Nair(1999)5SCC690
Cr.P.C. S.197 and P.C. Act S.19ection 197
requires sanction both for those who were or
are public servants
Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana AIR
1987 SC 735
Cr.P.C. S.197 Criminal Breach of trust is not
part of duty
State of Maharashtra Vs.Dr. B.K. Subbarao
and another1993CriLJ2984 Overruled
Cr.P.C. S.197 Due to want of valid sanction
order will not operate as acquittal
State of U.P.Vs.Paras Nath
Singh2009CriLJ3069
Cr.P.C. S.197 For want of sanction accused
was aquitted instead of discharge
State of Orissa through Cr.P.C. S.197 Forgery etc are not part of duty
and hence want of sanction is no bar
Kumar Raghvendra Singh and
Ors.Vs.Ganesh Chandra Jew
Cr.P.C. S.197 is and was
Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand
JainVs.Pandey Ajay Bhushan and
Ors.AIR1998SC1524
Cr.P.C. S.197 Necessit of sanction can be
considered after evidence when it cannot be
decided without evidence
Mohd. Hadi RajaVs. State of Bihar and
Anr.AIR1998SC1945
Cr.P.C. S.197 not applicable to public sector
undertaking employee
Parkash Singh Badal and Anr. vs State of
Punjab and Ors(2007)1SCC1
Cr.P.C. S.197 Power under S.156(3) is
discretionary
Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh &
Orsvs.Jammal Patel and
Ors.AIR2001SC2198
Cr.P.C. S.197 Real test is if the complained
acts were not done should it amount to
dereliction of duty then sanction is necessary
Matajog DobeyVs.H.C.
BhariAIR1956SC44
Cr.P.C. S.197 Sanction is required to
prosecute when the search party was
obstructed and there was just a scuffle
Kerala HC
Sankarankutty_Menon_And_Ors._vs_Dep
uty_Superintendent_Of_Police,_..._on_3_J
anuary,_1961
Cr.P.C. S.197 Sanction Test
Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand
JainVs.Pandey Ajay Bhushan and
Ors.AIR1998SC1524
Cr.P.C. S.197 Whether the accused was
discharging public servant's duty or not can
be considered during the progress of the case
Kumar Raghvendra Singh and
Ors.Vs.Ganesh Chandra Jew
Cr.P.C. S.197 Words used are -is and was -
State of Orissa through
Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas Vs. State Of
Maharashtra & Anr, AIR 1967 SC 983
Cr.P.C. S.198 and S.495 of IPC complainant
died mother continued complaint
S Cr.P.C. S.198 Cognizance of S.494 with
S.498A of IPC on charge sheet permissible
tate of Orisssa Vs.Sharat Chandra Sahu and
another
Cr.P.C. S.198- IPC Sec.494 cognizable with
S. 498A on police report cognizable
UshabenVs.Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada
and Ors.2012ACR1859
Cr.P.C. S.199 Where police took no action
inspite of information remedy lies in filing
complaint
Divine Retreat CentreVs.State of Kerala
and Ors.AIR2008SC1614
Cr.P.C. S.200 in N.I. Act cases Affidavits are
allowed in lieu of verification
Rajesh Bhalchandra ChalkeVs.State of
Maharashtra and Emco Dynatorq Pvt.
Ltd.2011(1)MhLj244
Cr.P.C. S.200 Second complaint on same
facts when tenable remanded to High Court
Poonam Chand Jain 2005 SCC (Cri) 190 Cr.P.C. S.201 Complaint cannot be returned
after issuing summons
Devendra Kishanlal DagaliaVs.Dwarkesh
Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. and
Ors.AIR2014SC655
Cr.P.C. S.202 Amended Examining
witnesses is a compliance of postponement
Vijay Dhanuka Etc.Vs.Najima Mamtaj
Etc2014CriLJ2295
Cr.P.C. S.202 In session triable offences it is
not mandatory but advisable to examine all
witnesses
Shivjee SinghVs.Nagendra Tiwary and
Ors.AIR2010SC2261
Cr.P.C. S.202 Inquiry mandatory when
accused is from far away place
2014_STPL(Web)_218_SC Cr.P.C. S.202 Magistrate is not a silent
spectator He may put questions to elicite
truth Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr.Vs.Special
Judicial
Magistrate and Ors.AIR1998SC128 Cr.P.C. S.202 Once complaint was quashed
on the ground of similar complaint being
peding further complaint is not tenable
Rajeev SawhneyVs.State Bank of
Mauritius Ltd. and Ors.2011(6)MhLj401
Cr.P.C. S.202 Shall does not mean
mandatory Not necessary to examine all
witnesses in inquiry
Shivjee SinghVs.Nagendra Tiwary and
Ors.AIR2010SC2261
Cr.P.C. S.203 Magistrate has no jurisdiction
to recall the process
Adalat PrasadVs.Rooplal Jindal and
Ors.(2004)7SCC338
Cr.P.C. S.203 Sessions Trial case dismissed
by Magistrate an error within jurisdiction
Kewal Krishan Lachman DasVs.Suraj
Bhan and Anr.AIR1980SC1780
Cr.P.C. S.204 (Check this ratio) On receiving
police report process need not be issued
Nilesh Daulatrao Lakhani vs. State of
Maharashtra2014(4)BomCR(Cri)757
Cr.P.C. S.204 Adalat Prasad case applicable
to Summons and Warrant cases
Subramanium SethuramanVs.State of
Maharashtra and Anr.2004CriLJ4609
Cr.P.C. S.204 and NI Act S.138 Adalat
Prasad followed in
Subramanium SethuramanVs.State of
Maharashtra and Anr. (2004)13SCC324
Cr.P.C. S.204 Challenge to jurisdiction shall
be made by application before trial court
Krishna Kumar VariarVs.Share
Shoppe2010CriLJ3848
Cr.P.C. S.204 Check this ratio On receiving
police report process need not be issued
Nilesh Daulatrao Lakhani vs. State of
Maharashtra2014(4)BomCR(Cri)757
Cr.P.C. S.204 Court can insist for process fee
in non cognizable offences
1Mt. Vithi and Anr. vs Tulsiram Maroti
and Crown 950CriLJ746
Cr.P.C. S.204 Detailed reasons unneccary for
issuance process
Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of
Delhi) and Anr.AIR2012SC1747
Cr.P.C. S.204 order is not interlocutory
Magistrate cannot review
Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of
Delhi) and Anr.AIR2012SC1747
Cr.P.C. S.204 Summons is a process issued
by court calling to apper
Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of
Delhi) and Anr.(2012)5SCC422
Cr.P.C. S.204 Taking cognizance explained
Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of
Delhi) and Anr.(2012)5SCC422
Cr.P.C. S.204 Taking cognizance means
becoming aware of and to take notice of
judicially
AIR1997SC3750State of BiharVs.Kadra
Pahadiya and Others
Cr.P.C. S.206 Notification for Special
Summons
R.R. ChariVs.State of
U.P.AIR1962SC1573
Cr.P.C. S.206 Use recommended by
Supreme Court
Raj Kishore PrasadVs.State of Bihar and
anotherAIR1996SC1931
Cr.P.C. S.209 After committal it cannot be
said that the Magistrate has jurisdiction over
the case
Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of
Delhi) and Anr.(2012)5SCC422
Cr.P.C. S.209 Committal under the new
Code is not an enquiry strictly speaking
Cr.P.C. S.209 Form Committal Warrant
Chhotan Sao and Anr.Vs.State of
BiharAIR2014SC907
Cr.P.C. S.209 Magistrate has a duty to secure
the Vicera Report etc before the committal
Raj Kishore Prasad Vs.State of Bihar and
anotherAIR1996SC1931
Cr.P.C. S.209 Magistrate has no power to
summon a new accused at the stage of
committal
State of Uttar PradeshVs.Lakshmi
Brahman and Anr.AIR1983SC439
Cr.P.C. S.209 Supplying copies under S.207
is judicial function and without its
compliance there can be no committal
Chhotan Sao and anr Vs. State of Bihar
AIR 2014 SC 907
Cr.P.C. S.209 Without obtaining the forensic
report committal by Magistrate is mechanical
and without applying mind
Pal @ Palla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
(2010)10SCC123
Cr.P.C. S.210 Clubbing of police case and
complaint case is not permissible when the
accused or the offences are not same
Delhi HC State vs Ram Kanwar
1984(1)Crimes1040
Cr.P.C. S.212(2) is an enabling provision
Ranchhodlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
AIR 1965 SC 1248
Cr.P.C. S.212, 219 and 220 are enabling
provisions for joinder of trials
C.B.I.Vs.Karimullah Osan Khan Cr.P.C. S.216 Charge may be altered any
time
Ranchhodlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
1965 AIR 1248
Cr.P.C. S.218 and 219 Charge IPC S.409
Consecutive sentence in separate trials
upheld
Manoharlal Lohe Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh1981CriLJ1563
Cr.P.C. S.218 and S.409 IPC Accused never
objected joint trial and hence consenting
party and hence conviction upheld
Chudaman Narayan Patil vs State Of
Maharashtra on 22 September, 1967
Cr.P.C. S.218 and S.409 IPC Ranchodlal
follwed in
Birichh Bhuian and Ors.Vs.State of
BiharAIR1963SC1120
Cr.P.C. S.218 Difference between
irregularity and illegality in joinder of
charges
Messers Indian Sulphacid Industries
DELHI MANU-DE-2870-2011
Cr.P.C. S.219 and 220 are exception section
218 of Cr.P.C.
Ranchhodlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
1965 AIR 1248
Cr.P.C. S.219 Charge IPC S.409 Consecutive
sentence in separate trials upheld
State vs Ram Kanwar 1984 (1) Crimes
1040 Delhi
Cr.P.C. S.219 Separate charges and trials is
the normal rule
Aklak Ahmed Fakruddin PatelVs.State of
Maharashtra2011CriLJ126
Cr.P.C. S.220 Clubbing of police case for
S.498A and 306 and complaint case for
S.302 and 304B against same accused has
been upheld
Manivannan And S. Krishnamoorthy vs
P.R. Adhikesavan MANU-TN-0178-2008
Cr.P.C. S.220 Complainant filed separate
cases of S.420 IPC and S.138 NI Act Held
separate trials were not improper
Narinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. vs.Union
of India and ors AIR2001SC3810
Cr.P.C. S.220 Each depositors case is
individual offence
Nova Vision Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and
Anr.Vs.State and Anr.2011CriLJ868
Cr.P.C. S.220 For separate cheque separate
trial has been justified
Praveen vs State Of Maharashtra 2001
CriLJ 3417
Cr.P.C. S.220 Same transaction Kidnapping
from Nagpur Rape in Jabalpur Either Court
can try
Praveen vs State Of Maharashtra 2001
CriLJ 3417
Cr.P.C. S.220 Same transaction
Nova Vision Electronics Pvt.Ltd and anr
Vs. State and anr MANU-DE-4089-2009
Cr.P.C. S.220 Separate cheques seperate
trials
K. Prema S. Rao Vs.Yadla Srinivasa Rao
AIR2003SC11
Cr.P.C. S.221 Convicted for S.306 along
with S.498A though charged with S.304B
and 498A
Samadhan Baburao Khakare and
Ors.Vs.The State of Maharashtra and
Ors.1995(2)MhLj464
Cr.P.C. S.222(2) Major and the minor
offences must be cognate offences having
main ingredients in common.
Ramesh Singh State Of Maharashtra 1993
CriLJ 2743
Cr.P.C. S.222(2) Police Act S.124 conviction
upheld though the charge was under S.413 of
IPC
Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad YadavVs.State
through C.B.IAIR2003SC3838
Cr.P.C. S.223 On the application of accused
the Magistrate may amalgamate cases. He
can read one case evidence in the other
Banti @ GudduVs.State of Madhya
PradeshAIR2004SC261
Cr.P.C. S.226 and 231 APP can choose and
pick his witnesses
(Satish Mehra (1996) 9 SCC 766
Overruled)-State Of Orissa vs Debendra
Nath Padhi A.I.R. 2005 SCC 369
Cr.P.C. S.226 Anticipatory bail in UP upheld
by SC
Dinesh Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
dd on_ 07.07.2014 MANU-SC-0587-2014
Cr.P.C. S.227 and 239 Material produced by
accused not to be considered
Union of India (UOI)Vs.Prafulla Kumar
Samal and Anr.AIR1979SC366
Cr.P.C. S.227 Charge of an offence not
mentioned in charge sheet can be framed
State Of Karnataka vs Chetan Tayal Cr.P.C. S.227 Discharge Test
V. C. Shukla vs State Through C.B.I AIR
1980 SC AIR
Cr.P.C. S.227 Documents produced by
accused cannot be considered at the time of
charge
Niranjan Singh Karan Singh Vs. Jitendra
Bhimraj Bijje, AIR 1990 SC 1962
Cr.P.C. S.227 Framing Charge is
Interlocutory order
Satish Mehra (1996) 9 SCC 766 Overruled
in State Of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi
A.I.R. 2005 SCC 369
Cr.P.C. S.227 Marshalling of evidence not
required at the stage of Charge
Willie (William) SlaneyVs.The State of
Madhya PradeshAIR1956SC116
Cr.P.C. S.227 Material of accused not to be
considered
M. Joy Varghese Cr.P.C. S.227 Omission to frame charge of
s.34 IPC not fatal
Smt. Snehalata MondalVs.State of West
Bengal(2008)1CALLT297(HC)
Cr.P.C. S.227 Though Trial cannot consider
documents of accused High Court can
consider under S.482
State of BombayVs.Mohamadh
KhanAIR1960Bom150
Cr.P.C. S.229 Subsequent plea of guilty
accepted
Rohtash KumarVs.State of
Haryana(2013)14SCC434
Cr.P.C. S.231 Additional witness for
prosecution can be allowed
Ram Deo Chauhanvs.State of Assam
(2001)5SCC714
Cr.P.C. S.231 and Evi Act S.114 Prosecution
is not bound to examine all listed witnesses
Narpal Singh & Others vs State Of
Haryana AIR 1977 SC 1066
Cr.P.C. S.235(2) Accused upon conviction
can be sent to jail until hearing on sentence
Modilal Kaluram Kachhara And Etc. vs
State Of Maharashtra 1988 CriLJ__1901__
Cr.P.C. S.235(2) To hear on sentence de
novo trial not necessary
(Satish Mehra (1996) 9 SCC 766
Overruled)-State Of Orissa vs Debendra
Nath Padhi A.I.R. 2005 SCC 369
Cr.P.C. S.239 and 240 Transfer application
Rejected Complaint Against Judge
Cr.P.C. S.239 Discharged from S.498A and
506
Kanti Bhadra Shah and Anr. Vs.The State
of West BengalAIR2000SC522
Cr.P.C. S.239 Magistrate need not write
order for framing charge but has to write
order for discharge
M. Joy Varghese Vs The State ANU-TN-
0365-2011
Cr.P.C. S.239 Under S.482 no bar to the
High Court to consider the documents
produced by accused
Dattatraya Dagduji Borkute 1996 CriLJ987 Cr.P.C. S.242(2) and 254(2) and 87 If
warrant is not applied for, it is Court's
discretion to issue warrant to the absent
witness
ILR 1970(1) Del287 Cr.P.C. S.244 Accused has right to cross
examine in EBC
Sunil Mehta and Anr.Vs.State of Gujarat
and Anr.2013(2)BomCR(Cri)335
Cr.P.C. S.244 Statements of S.202 are not
EBC
1983 Mah.L.J.494 Cr.P.C. S.244 Witness in EBC not available
for cross after charge His evidence may be
considered
Cricket Association of Bengal and ors Vs.
State of West Bengal and ors. AIR 1971
SC 1971
Cr.P.C. S.245(2) Complaint can be dismissed
before charge
Luis De Piedade Lobo Vs.Mahadev
Vishwanath Parulekar1984CriLJ513
Cr.P.C. S.245(2) Opportunity to adduce EBC
should be given to the Complaint
Hansraj Harjiwan Bhate and
Ors.Vs.EmperorAIR1940Nag390
Cr.P.C. S.246 Additional witnesses allowed
Absence of any provision on particular
matter does not mean that there is no such
power in criminal court
Gurmukh Singh and Ors. vs. The State of
Punjab (1972)4SCC805
Cr.P.C. S.248(2) Conviction not bad for
failure to adopt procedure applicable to
complaint-warrant case
Sagunabai Lahanu Shende Vs.Patru Goma
Lengure and others1979MhLJ18
Cr.P.C. S.249 cannot be invoked after charge
DB In Re_ Jamnabai Meghji
AIR1934Bom130
Cr.P.C. S.249 Courts practice of posting case
for actual hearing and simple adjournment
discussed by
Narayandas Narayandas Gulabchand
Agrawal v. Rakesh Kumar Nem Kumar
Porwal 1996 (2) Mh.L.J. 463
Cr.P.C. S.249 Magistrate is not empowered
to restore a complaint
Dagdu Govindshet WaniVs.Punja Vedu
WaniAIR1937Bom55
Cr.P.C. S.250 and 350 Old Act For these
sections trial commences in warrant case
even before charge
IND Synergy Ltd.Vs.Goyal MG Gases Pvt.
Ltd.III(2014)BC433(Del)
Cr.P.C. S.251 Adalat Prasad case would not
come in way for objection to jurisdiction
Jhantu DasVs.State of
Tripura(2007)2GLR443
Cr.P.C. S.251 If the admitted facts do not
amount to offence accused can not be
convicted
Girraj Prasad MeenaVs.State of Rajasthan
and Ors 2013 (12) SCALE 275
Cr.P.C. S.252 Plead guilty for lessor offences
set aside as informant had no opportunity to
apply for adding charges or accused
Shri Sandeep Indravadan SagarVs.State of
Maharashtra and others dd on 10.01.2013
Cr.P.C. S.252 Rubber stamp used for
recording plea of accused Court upheld the
order
State of MaharashtraVs.Maruti Dadu
Kamble1988MhLJ49
Cr.P.C. S.255 Magistrate should issue
summons on request of the prosecution, but
can refuse to adjourn if no efforts taken to
serve the summons
Jethalal GirdharlalVs.State of
Gujarat(1984)2GLR964
Cr.P.C. S.255(2) and Prohibition Act
S.66(1)(b) Hearing on sentence gives
accused to show special reason for less than
minimum punishment
Jethalal GirdharlalVs.State of Gujarat
MANU-GJ-0206-1984
Cr.P.C. S.255(2) and S.66(1)(b) Magistrate
has to hear the accused on sentence
In Re_ Wasudeo Narayan Phadnis
AIR1950Bom10 (DB)
Cr.P.C. S.256 (Do not follow this authority)
Magistrate can restore the complaint and
continue from the last stage
Narayandas Gulabchand Agrawal 1996-2-
MhLj463
Cr.P.C. S.256 and 249 Bombay says
Magistrate has no jurisdiction to restore a
dismissed complaint
Om Gayatri and company Vs. State of
Maharashtra 2006 Cr.L.J.601
Cr.P.C. S.256 Bombay No revision lies
against order under section
Associated Cement Co. Ltd vs Keshvanand
AIR1998SC596
Cr.P.C. S.256 Court should not insist for
presence of particular person should not
dismiss if evidence already recorded the
Harishchandra @ Sunil Rajaram Rasker
Vs.Kantilal Virchand Vora &
another1998CriLJ3754
Cr.P.C. S.256 Magistrate cannot restore
complaint
Madankumar Dharamchand Jain and
Anr.Vs.State of Maharashtra and
Anr.1983(1)BomCR416
Cr.P.C. S.256 Magistrate has no power to
recall the dismissal order
Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya and Anr.Vs.S.N.
Thakur and Anr.AIR1986SC1440
Cr.P.C. S.256 Magistrate not empowered to
restore dismissed complaint
S. Rama KrishnaVs.S. Rami
ReddyAIR2008SC2066
Cr.P.C. S.256(1) Magistrate has to dismiss
complaint unless decided to adjourn for some
cause
State of MaharashtraVs.Maruti Dadu
Kamble1988MhLJ49
Cr.P.C. S.258 After summons only
Magistrate can close case
Pramatha Nath MukherjeeVs.The State of
West BengalAIR1960SC810
Cr.P.C. S.259 After discharging from
warrant case trying summons case under
chapter 20 is valid
Zafar and othersVs.State of
U.P.1968AWR(H.C.)38281
Cr.P.C. S.263 and 264 of old Cr.P.C Notes of
evidence when need not be retained
Girraj Prasad MeenaVs.State of Rajasthan
and Ors.
Cr.P.C. S.265 Plea bargaining in haste
Guerrero Lugo Elvia GrisselVs.The State
of Maharashtra2012CriLJ1136
Cr.P.C. S.265A Notification of the excluded
Acts
Madras HC
State_By_vs_K.N.Nehru_on_3_November,
_2011-1
Cr.P.C. S.265E Court has no discretion to
award sentence other than one-fourth of the
punishment
Ramesh Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar
And Ors. on 17 December, 1986
Cr.P.C. S.267 Formal arrest of the accused in
jail
State of Maharashtra Vs.Yadav Natthuji
Kohachade2000CriLJ959
Cr.P.C. S.267 Non production of prisoners
State of Maharashtra and P.C. SinghVs.Dr.
Praful B. Desai and Anr.AIR2003SC2053
Cr.P.C. S.267 Procedure of Production
warrant
The State of Maharashtra Vs.Bhaurao
Doma Udan and Others1996(1)MhLj214
Cr.P.C. S.273 Evidence on commission
through VC allowed in Criminal cases
Abdul
RahmanVs.Emperor1927(29)BOMLR813
Cr.P.C. S.277 Marathi deposition will prevail
over English
Mir Mohd. Omar and Ors.vs.State of West
BengalAIR1989SC1785
Cr.P.C. S.278 Not reding over deposition but
making available for his reading was
sufficient
Trial not vitiated Shivnarayan
KabraVs.The State of
MadrasAIR1967SC986
Cr.P.C. S.278 Object is to ensure accuracy of
evidence and to give witness concerned
opportunity to point out mistakes
The State Of Maharashtra vs Manik Mohan
Gaikwad on 26 November, 2008
Cr.P.C. S.279 Evidence's language unknown
to accused, but known to advocates.
Rajesh Kumar and Anr.Vs.State Govt. of
NCT of Delhi (2008)4SCC493
Cr.P.C. S.291A Test Identification Parade
and purpose No provision in Cr.P.C. which
obliges investigation agency to hold
identification parade
Kodadi Srinivasa Lingam and Ors.Vs.State
of A.P.2001CriLJ602 A.P
Cr.P.C. S.293(1) Not obligatory that the
expert on the scientific issue of the chemical
examination of substance, should be made to
depose in proceedings before Court
Guwahati Sub-Divisional Market
CommitteeVs.Suresh
Sikaria2013(4)GLT486
Cr.P.C. S.294 Admitted documents can be
read in evidence
Himachal Pradesh AdministrationVs.Om
PrakashAIR1972SC975
Cr.P.C. S.294 application by accused shall be
considered only statement of S.313
State of Punjab vs. Naib
DinAIR2001SC3955
Cr.P.C. S.294 Proof without examining the
expert
Constitution Bench Dharam Pal and
Ors.Vs.State of Haryana and Anr.MANU-
SC-0720-2013
Cr.P.C. S.296 What is formal evidence which
can be taken on affidavit is explained
Jayendra Vishnu ThakurVs.State of
Maharahstra and Anr.(2009)7SCC104
Cr.P.C. S.299 and 193 After committal
Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to summon
accused named in column no.2
Jayendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of
Maharahstra and Anr. (2009)7SCC104(1
Cr.P.C. S.299 is applicable when the accused
intentionally makes inaccessable and not
merely when it is shown that it is not
possible to trace him
Nirmal Singh Vs.State of
HaryanaAIR2000SC1416
Cr.P.C. S.299 On surrender of accused
attachment to be vacated )
Smt. Urmila SahuVs.State of
Orissa1998CriLJ1372 Orissa
Cr.P.C. S.299 second part is exceptionto S.33
of Evidence Act
Central Bureau of InvestigationVs.Abu
Salem Ansari and Anr.(2011)4SCC426
Cr.P.C. S.299 Unless common evidence is
recorded the evidence against the tried
accused cannot be read against absconding
accused
Monica BediVs.State of
A.P.(2011)1SCC284
Cr.P.C. S.299(1) will be applicable if any of
its conditions are satisfied
Thomas DanaVs.The State of
PunjabAIR1959SC375
Cr.P.C. S.300 Double jeopardy To operate as
a bar the second prosecution and the
consequential punishment thereunder, must
be for 'the same offence
Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai PatelVs.State
of Gujarat and Anr.AIR2012SC2844
Cr.P.C. S.300 Double Jeopardy's 3 requisites
State of Karnataka through CBIVs.C.
NagarajaswamyAIR2005SC4308
Cr.P.C. S.300 No Double Jeopardy in
Dishonor of Cheque case even if there was a
case under S.420 IPC
Baban DaudVs.EmperorAIR1915Bom254 Cr.P.C. S.300 P.C. Act S.19 Fresh trial not
barred when the Court had no jurisdiction to
take cognizance due to invaid sanction
Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir
KasabVs.State of
MaharashtraAIR2012SC3565
Cr.P.C. S.301 Trial on Sunday without legal
aid was setaside
Sitaram SaoVs.State of
JharkhandAIR2008SC391
Cr.P.C. S.302 Free legal aid should be
provided from the stage of remand
Sitaram SaoVs.State of
JharkhandAIR2008SC391
Cr.P.C. S.306 Aprover relied
Narayan Chetanram ChaudharyVs.State of
MaharashtraAIR2000SC3352
Cr.P.C. S.306 Aprover was relied
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Anr.
Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2000 SC
3352
Cr.P.C. S.306 Pardon is not right Aapplicable
without committal 307 applicable after
committal.doc
Narayan Chetanram ChaudharyVs.State of
MaharashtraAIR2000SC3352
Cr.P.C. S.306(1) is invocable at
precommitmentS.307 is invocable at post-
commitment while state
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar Vs.
State of Maharashtra (2009)6SCC498
Cr.P.C. S.306(1) Pardon is not right
Aapplicable without committal 307
applicable after committal.doc
State of Himachal PradeshVs.Surinder
Mohan And OthersAIR2000SC1862
Cr.P.C. S.306(1) Pardon Procedure
A. DeivendranVs.State of
T.N.AIR1998SC2821
Cr.P.C. S.306(4) Accused has no right of
cross examination of the approver
Asokan L.S.Vs.State of
Kerala2005CriLJ3848
Cr.P.C. S.306(4)(a) Examination of approver
is mandatory if pardon tendered before
committal but not mandatory if tendered by
sessions court after commital
The State of MaharashtraVs.Shanti Prasad
Jain1978MhLJ227
Cr.P.C. S.306(4)(a) Statement of approver is
not admissibleunder S.33 Evi Act
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary &
Anr.Vs.State of
MaharashtraAIR2000SC3352
Cr.P.C. S.306(5) CJM and ACJM and CMM
and ACMM have equal jurisdiction
Mrinal Das and Ors.Vs.The State of
TripuraAIR2011SC3753
Cr.P.C. S.307 After committal the approver
need not be examined twice
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and
Anr.Vs.State of
MaharashtraAIR2000SC3352
Cr.P.C. S.307 is applicable after committal
Jasbir Singhvs. Vipin Kumar Jaggi and
Ors.AIR2001SC2734
Cr.P.C. S.307 is invocable at post-
commitment while S.306 is invocable at
precommitment state
P. Ramachandra RaoVs.State of
KarnatakaAIR2002SC1856
Cr.P.C. S.307 pardon is by Court NDPS Act
S.64 is by executive Later overrides
Thana SinghVs.Central Bureau of
Narcotics2013CriLJ1262 circulated in
Pune
Cr.P.C. S.309 Common Cause and Rajdeo
Sharma Cases are overruled
Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab dd in
2012
Cr.P.C. S.309 Criminal Trials Directions for
day to day trials
Abdul Rehman Antulay etc. etc.Vs.R.S.
Nayak and another etc.
etc.AIR1992SC1701
Cr.P.C. S.309 Directions given not to grant
adjournments casually
N.G. Dastanevs.Shrikant S. Shivde and
Anr.AIR2001SC2028
Cr.P.C. S.309 It is neither permissible nor
possible nor desirable to lay down an outer
limit of time
Bipin Shantilal PanchalVs.State of Gujarat
and Anr.AIR2001SC1158
Cr.P.C. S.309 Magistrate new spared from
adverse remarks for allowing Advocates
misconduct in seeking adjournment
Abdul Rehman Antulay etc. etc.Vs.R.S.
Nayak and another etc.
etc.AIR1992SC1701
Cr.P.C. S.309 Mark the objected document
tentatively as an exhibit
Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj Nath vs State of
Assam AIR2001SC2231
Cr.P.C. S.309 Neither permissible nor
possible nor desirable to lay down an outer
limit of time
Hussainara Khatoon and Ors.Vs.Home
Secretary, State of Bihar,
PatnaAIR1979SC1360
Cr.P.C. S.309 On conviction accused to be
taken into custody pending punishment
P. Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka
AIR2002SC1856
Cr.P.C. S.309 Speedy trial is of the essence
of criminal justice
P. Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka
AIR2002SC1856
Cr.P.C. S.309 Supreme Court cannot fix time
for conclusion of trials
Mohd. KhalidVs.State of West
Bengal(2002)7SCC334
Cr.P.C. S.309 Time cannot be fixed by
Supreme Court for conclusion of trials
State of U.P. vs.Shambhu Nath Singh &
Ors.AIR2001SC1403
Cr.P.C. S.309 Unnecessary adjournments
give a scope for a grievance that accused
persons get a time to get over the witnesses
Sasi ThomasVs.State and
Ors.(2006)12SCC421
Cr.P.C. S.309 When witnesses are present
and accused causes adjournment Court can
remand accused or direct payment of
expenses present
In Re_ Kesava Pillai and Anr.
AIR1929Mad837
Cr.P.C. S.311 Court can order further
investigation
Nageshwar Shri Krishna GhobeVs.State of
MaharashtraAIR1973SC165
Cr.P.C. S.311 Just decision does not
necessarily mean a decision in favour of
defence
Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan,Vs.Union
Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli
2003BomCR(Cri)1103
Cr.P.C. S.311 Parties cannot control the
Court's discretion to have any additional
evidence
Rajendra Prasad Vs.The Narcotic
CellAIR1999SC2292
Cr.P.C. S.311 Recall of witness allowed
Iddar and Ors.Vs.Aabida and
Anr.AIR2007SC3029
Cr.P.C. S.311 The power of the Court was
plenary to summon or even recall any
witness at any stage of the case
Rajendra Prasad vs The Narcotic Cell
Through Its AIR 1999 SC 2292
Cr.P.C. S.311 to be invoked Essential for just
decision
Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, Vs. Union
Territory Of Dadra And Nagar, 2004 CriLJ
150
Cr.P.C. S.311 What is Lacuna. No party in a
trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors
Laxman alias Laxmayya Vs.The State of
Maharashtra 2012 Cri.L.J. 2826
Cr.P.C. S.311 Witness recalled to depose as
they turned hostile previously due to threats
by the accused
Dr. Sunil Clifford DanielVs.State of
Punjab2012CriLJ4657 Prosecution
Cr.P.C. S.313 Accused be informed that he
can decline to give answers and his
inculpatory statements may be taken into
consideration
Basavaraj R. Patil and OthersVs.State of
Karnataka and OthersAIR2000SC3214
Cr.P.C. S.313 AND PC Act Failure of
accused to offer appropriate explanation or
giving false answer may be counted as
providing a missing link
State of MaharashtraVs.Maruti Dadu
Kamble1988MhLJ49
Cr.P.C. S.313 Counsel cannot be examined
Jethalal GirdharlalVs.State of
Gujarat(1984)2GLR964
Cr.P.C. S.313 Statement is not evidence
Satyavir Singh RathiVs.State thr.
C.B.I.AIR2011SC1748
In Re_ Kannammal alias Maunammal
92Ind. Cas.695
Cr.P.C. S.313(1)(b) Accused should be
warned
Basavaraj R. Patil and OthersVs.State of
Karnataka and
OthersAIR2000SC3214(3JJs)
Cr.P.C. S.313(1)(b) Advocate cannot be
examined but questionire for accused can be
given
Basavaraj R. Patil and OthersVs.State of
Karnataka and OthersAIR2000SC3214
Cr.P.C. S.313(1)(b) Counsel cannot be
examined
Satyavir Singh RathiVs.State thr.
C.B.I.AIR2011SC1748
Cr.P.C. S.313(1)(b) Statement is not
evidence
Messers Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs
Messers Bhiwani Denim and Apparels
Ltd.AIR2001SC3625
Cr.P.C. S.317 Personal exemption when can
be granted
Hardeep Singh etc. Vs.State of Punjab and
Ors. etc. etc.2014(1)SCALE241
Cr.P.C. S.319 A person discharged can be
arraigned again as accused after an inquiry as
contemplated by Section 300(5) and 398
(5JJs)
Bholu RamVs.State of Punjab and
Anr.2008 Cri.L.J. 4576 SC
Cr.P.C. S.319 Accused can apply to
Magistrate
Rakesh and Anr.vs.State of
HaryanaAIR2001SC2521
Cr.P.C. S.319 Accused named in FIR but
excluded police can be summoned even
without cross exam of the witness
Hardeep Singh etc. etc.Vs.State of Punjab
and Ors. etc. etc.2014(1)SCALE241
Cr.P.C. S.319
Hardeep Singh etc. Vs.State of Punjab and
Ors. AIR2014SC1400
Cr.P.C. S.319 Larger Bench explained A
person discharged can be arraigned again as
accused after an inquiry as contemplated by
Section 300(5) and 398 (5JJs)
Hardeep Singh etc. etc.Vs.State of Punjab
and Ors. etc. etc.AIR2014SC1400
Cr.P.C. S.319 Larger Bench explained when
can section 319 be resorted
Dr. S.S. KhannaVsChief Secretary, Patna
and Anr.AIR1983SC595(2Judges)
Cr.P.C. S.319 Magistrate can proceed against
an accused whom the Magistrate refused to
summon
Uma Shankar Vs.State of Bihar and
Anr.(2010)9SCC479
Cr.P.C. S.319 Magistrate can take
cognizance against the accused named in FIR
but omitted in the charge sheet
Kishori Singh and Ors.Vs.State of Bihar
and Anr. AIR2000SC3725
Cr.P.C. S.319 Magistrate cannot issue
process to FIR named but chargesheet
unnamed accused at committal stage (Two
Judges in)
Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
AnrAIR2007SC2786
Cr.P.C. S.319 Purpose of this power is
explained
2012 STPL(Web) 521 SC Cr.P.C. S.320 and 482 FIR quashing When
can the HC on compromise
Bom FB Abasaheb Yadav Honmane
Vs.The State of Maharashtra2008 2
MhLj856
Cr.P.C. S.320 At any stage permissible
Hirabhai Jhaverbhai vs State Of Gujarat &
Ors
Cr.P.C. S.320 IPC S.324 offence before
amendment is compundable
Rajesh Rajesh Kannan vs A.K. Murthy and
Ors.2009-2-UC879
Cr.P.C. S.320 Non-compoundable case unfit
for conciliation SC said
Rajesh Rajesh Kannan vs A.K. Murthy and
Ors.2009-2-UC879
Cr.P.C. S.320 Non-compoundable case unfit
for mediation SC said
Hirabhai JhaverbhaiVs.State of Gujarat
and Ors.AIR2010SC2321
Cr.P.C. S.320 Offence of S.324 IPC prior to
amendment is compoundable
Rameshchandra J. ThakkarVs.Assandas
Parmanand Jhaveri, State of
MaharashtraAIR1973SC84
Cr.P.C. S.320 Partly compounding is not
permissible
Rajinder SinghVs.State (Delhi
Administration)AIR1980SC1200
Cr.P.C. S.320 Partly compounding was
maintained without discussion on validity
Gian SinghVs.State of Punjab and
Anr.(2010)15SCC118
Cr.P.C. S.320 Referring to Larger Bench as
S.420 IPC is compoundable and S.120B is
non compoundable
Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Vs.The State of
Maharashtra2008 2 MhLj856
Cr.P.C. S.320 Under S.482 non-
compoundable offence's FIR can be quashed
Bom FB
Gian SinghVs.State of Punjab and
Anr.(2012)10SCC303
Cr.P.C. S.320 When can the F.I.R. be
quashed guidelines given in
Sheonandan PaswanVs.State of Bihar and
Ors.AIR1987SC877
Cr.P.C. S.321 Grounds for seeking Courts
consent for withdrawal
Sheonandan PaswanVs.State of Bihar and
Ors.AIR1987SC877
Cr.P.C. S.321 Withdrawal permission
principles discussed in
A.P. High Court Cr.P.C. S.323 and 325 Magistrate shall not
commit the case merely for severe
punishment
Sudhir and ors. etc.vs.State of M.P.
etc.AIR2001SC826
Cr.P.C. S.323 Sessions Judge has power to
try any offence Cross cases should be tried
by him
Khoda Bux MalVs.Ohadali
MalAIR1949Cal308
Cr.P.C. S.325 Magistrate has to write an
order but not judgment
II Addl. Judicial First Class
MagistrateVs.State of A.P.2005CriLJ1168
DB
Cr.P.C. S.325 When Magistrate cannot
exceed the limit of S.29 for want of special
provision he has to resort to S.325 and not
323
RajagopalVs.Forest Range
Officer2012(1)CTC639
Cr.P.C. S.325(1) Magistrate has to record
finding of guity and CJM cannot send back
case.
RajagopalVs.Forest Range
Officer2012(1)CTC639
Cr.P.C. S.325(1) Magistrate has to record
finding of guity.
NageshVs.State of
Karnataka1990CriLJ2234
Cr.P.C. S.325(1) Magistrate to record finding
and then refer to CJM
Jaikishan Kanjiwani Vs Kumar Matching
Centre2011CriLJ134
Cr.P.C. S.326 and N.I. Act S.138 Evidence
and not substance of evidence is recorded
Ramilaben Trikamlal ShahTube and Allied
Products and others
Cr.P.C. S.326 and N.I. Act S.138 Evidence
on affidavit followed by cross. De novo not
required
Navinchandra Hiralal Desai Cr.P.C. S.326 and N.I. Act S.138 In
summary trial only substance and not entire
sentence is recorded
Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali 2012 CriLJ
4537
Cr.P.C. S.326 Denovo Trial In an extremely
serious case of exceptional nature it would
occasion in failure of justice if Prosecution is
not taken to logical conclusion
Ranbir Yadav Vs State of Bihar AIR 1995
SC 1219
Cr.P.C. S.326 Discretion given to court to
read previous evidence
Emperor Vs. Maung Ragoon HC relies on
Bombay
Cr.P.C. S.326
Pratibha Pandurang Salvi Vs. State of
Maharashtra 2010CriLJ730
Cr.P.C. S.326 Once the Magistrate used the
discretion to try summarily, on his transfer it
should be denovo
Trial Mukesh and etc.Vs.State of
Rajasthan1998CriLJ2439
Cr.P.C. S.326 Rajastan HC in EC Act case
Summary
EmperorDurgaprasad Chunnilal and
Ors.AIR 1940 Nag 239
Cr.P.C. S.326 Substance of evidence can be
acted upon
Tippanna Koutya Mannavaddar Bombay
DB AIR1934Bom157
Cr.P.C. S.326 Summary Trials Notes
Procedure
MunicipalityNagindas Maganlal AIR 1953
Bom 29
Cr.P.C. S.326 Surat Borough
J.V. Baharuni vs. State of Gujarat (2014)
10 SCC 494
Cr.P.C. S.326(3) and NI Act S.138 and 142
If the evidence was not recorded summarily
but fully then no need of denovo
Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah and
Anr.Vs.Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal and
Anr.AIR2011SC3076
Cr.P.C. S.326(3) and S.138 NI Act Pursis of
accused would not make legal to read
evidence recorded by previous Magistrate
Shyambahadur Purshottam SharmaVs.Shri.
Sudhakar Narshu PoojaryMANU-MH-
1393-2013
Cr.P.C. S.326(3) Denovo Trial not necessary
Cr.P.C. S.326(3) Justice Mridula Bhatkar's
judgment on summary trial
K. JayachandranVsO. Nargeese and
Anr.1987CriLJ1997
Cr.P.C. S.326(3) No need of denovo trial
Abdul Sukkur Barbhuiya Vs. the State of
Assam and others, Gauhati HC dd
24.01.2012 CrlRevP1922011
Cr.P.C. S.326(3) Sessions Court to record
evidence denovo
Reserve Bank Employees Association,
NagpurVs.State of Maharashtra and
Ors.AIR1969Bom199
Cr.P.C. S.326(3) Succeeding Judge can
proceed (Case under old CR.P.C.)
State of Punjab Vs.Gurmit Singh and
Others AIR1 996 SC 1393
Cr.P.C. S.327 In camera proceeding
directions
Sakshi Vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR
2004 SC 3566
Cr.P.C. S.327 In camera trial and not to
disclose the name of the victim
The State of MaharashtraVs.Subhashsing
Shalikramsingh
Raghuwanshi1995(1)MhLj358
Cr.P.C. S.334 Acquittal case Course to be
adopted while acquitting on insanity ground
Ms. Leena Balkrishna NairVs.The State of
Maharashtra2010CriLJ3392
Cr.P.C. S.338 and IPC S.84 Accused was
acquitted and released under section 338 of
Cr.P.C.
State of MaharashtraVs.Sukhdeo Singh
and anotherAIR1992SC2100
Cr.P.C. S.342 (3) Answers given by accused
may be taken into consideration at enquiry or
trial
D.K. Basu Vs.State of West
BengalAIR1997SC610
Cr.P.C. S.342 Compensation to the victim
Arun Paswan, S.I.Vs.State of Bihar and
Ors.JT2003(10)SC459
Cr.P.C. S.345 Contempt of Court by police
officer
The Superintendent of PoliceVs.The
Judicial Magistrate Court,
CheyyarIV(2015)CCR502(Mad.)
Cr.P.C. S.349 and 91 Notice should be issued
before taking action
Dayal Singh and Ors.Vs.State of
UttaranchalAIR2012SC3046
Cr.P.C. S.353 Court is competent to direct
departmental action aginst erring officers
Satya NarainVs.State of
Rajasthan1987WLN(UC) Raj 458
Cr.P.C. S.353 Judgment pronounced in
absence of accused was upheld as he was
present during the trial
A.T. PrakashanVs.The Excise Inspector
and Anr.2014ALLMR(Cri)1945
Cr.P.C. S.353 Misquoting of the Section or
misapplying the provisions has caused no
prejudice Hence conviction maintained
State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai Supreme
(2014)5SCC108
Cr.P.C. S.354 Acquittal case A finding needs
to be recorded in each acquittal case whether
the lapse was innocent or blameworthy
State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai Supreme
Court jjment dated 07.01.2014
Cr.P.C. S.354 Acquittal case A finding needs
to be recorded in each acquittal case whether
the lapse was innocent or blameworthy
Complainant GaneshaVs.Sharanappa and
anr.AIR2014SC1198
Cr.P.C. S.354 and 154 The person who
lodges the FIR be called the Informant and
not the
Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy
JosephVs.State of
Maharashtra(2014)4SCC69
Cr.P.C. S.354(3) Court has to discharge its
constitutional obligations and honour
legislative policy by awarding appropriate
sentence, that is will of people
2012_STPL(Web)_338_SC R.MOHAN
VS VIJAY KUMAR
Cr.P.C. S.357 and S.138 NI Act
Compensation default sentence
R. VijayanVs.Baby and
Anr.AIR2012SC528
Cr.P.C. S.357 Compensation in S.138 N.I.
Act cases
R. VijayanVs.Baby and
Anr.AIR2012SC528
Cr.P.C. S.357 Compensation in S.138 N.I.
Act cases should include costs and loss
Ankush Shivaji GaikwadVs.State of
MaharashtraAIR2013 SC 2454
Cr.P.C. S.357 Every Courts Mandatory duty
to consider compensation
Ram Pal Vs. T.S. Thakur and Adarsh
Kumar Goes JT2015(2)SC496
Cr.P.C. S.357 State to compensation in
S.304A IPC where accused is unable to pay
R. MohanVs.A.K. Vijaya
Kumar2012CriLJ3953
Cr.P.C. S.357(3) (Simple) Imprisonment in
default of compensation was justified
Dilip S. DhanukarVs.Kotak Mahindra Co.
Ltd. and Anr.MANU-SC-8289-2007
Cr.P.C. S.357(3) Compensation to be less
than recoverable in civil court
K.A. Abbas H.S.A.Vs.Sabu Joseph and
Anr.(2010)6SCC230
Cr.P.C. S.357(3) Default sentence of
compensation is legal
2012_STPL(Web)_338_SC Cr.P.C. S.357(3) jail if compensation is
unpaid explained
Sunil alias Pona Tolaram Pore (Varma)
Vs. State of Maharashtra
Cr.P.C. S.360 not applicable to Maharashtra
Probation not available for S.326 IPC
Chandreshwar SharmaVs.State of
Bihar(2000)9SCC245
Cr.P.C. S.361 Court shall give reasons for
denial of benefit of probation
Eliamma and Anr.Vs.State of
Karnataka(2009)11SCC42
Cr.P.C. S.361 Mandatory to give reasons
State of PunjabVs.Prem Sagar and
Ors.2008CriLJ3533
Cr.P.C. S.361 Sentence would depend on
many factors
Rupam Pralhad Bhartiya Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Anr.MANU-MH-1005-
2011
Cr.P.C. S.361 Special Reasons to be given
for not granting probation HC increased fine
to one lakh
State of PunjabVs.Davinder Pal Singh
Bhullar and Ors
Cr.P.C. S.362 High Court has no power
under S.482 to review
Minu Kumari and Anr.Vs.The State of
Bihar and Ors.AIR2006SC1937
Cr.P.C. S.362 Magistrate can drop
proceeding against against whom process
was issued by mistake
Mohd. Chaman Vs.State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
2001CriLJ725
Cr.P.C. S.366 propositions to be kept in mind
for determination of question of death
sentence
In Re_ The Additional District Judge-cum-
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam
2003-1-LW(Crl)77
Cr.P.C. S.374 and 9 Additional Sessions
Judge can hear an appeal from Assistant
Sessions Judge if punishment was less than 7
years
State of MP V Bacchudas alias Balram and
Ors - AIR2007SC1236
Cr.P.C. S.374 Appeallate Court duties
Dilip S. DhanukarVs.Kotak Mahindra Co.
Ltd. and Anr.MANU-SC-8289-2007
Cr.P.C. S.374 Right of appeal against
conviction cannot be curtailed But appellate
court can impose condition for suspending
sentence
Messers Pioneer Castings and another Vs
Employees State Insurance Corporation
Cr.P.C. S.374(2) Appeal lies to Sessions
Court and not HC
Notes Cr.P.C. S.374(2) Appeal to High Court when
lies
Sudhir Niranjan Chakre Vs.Rajesh Ramdas
Wankhade2014ALLMR(Cri)4624
Cr.P.C. S.374(4) and 2(wa) and
407(1)(c)(iv)_ Victim can appeal to Sessions
Court and State to High Court against
acquittal Parties can pray high court to
transfer
The State of MaharashtraVs.Hanmant
Prabhakar Waidande and Ors.MANU-MH-
0868-2006
Cr.P.C. S.378 Against acquittal appeal lies to
sessions court in state case to high court in
complaint case
State (Delhi
Administration)vs.DharampalAIR2001SC2
924
Cr.P.C. S.378 Limitation is 90 days for
Appeal by complainant to HC against
acquittal in Food Act case
EmperorVs.Lakshman Chavji
NarangikarAIR1931Bom313
Cr.P.C. S.381 Assistant and Additional
Sessions Judges exercise jurisdiction of
Sessions Court
K.S. PandurangaVs.State of
KarnatakaAIR2013SC2164
Cr.P.C. S.384 to 386 Appeal once admitted -
has to be decided on merits even in absence
of accused
Kishori LalVs.Rupa and
Ors.(2004)7SCC638
Cr.P.C. S.389 Appellate Court shall consider
nature of allegations etc for granting bail
State of PunjabVs.Deepak
MattuAIR2008SC35
Cr.P.C. S.389 High court recalled its order
Kishori LalVs.Rupa and
Ors.(2004)7SCC638
Cr.P.C. S.389(1) Appellate Court shall
consider nature of allegations etc for granting
bail
Mayuram Subramanian
SrinivasanVs.C.B.I.AIR2006SC2449
Cr.P.C. S.389(3) is applicable only when
there is right to appeal
Bondada Gajapathy RaoVs.State of Andhra
PradeshAIR1964SC1645
Cr.P.C. S.394 Old S.431 When appellant has
died Appeal against fine only can be allowed
to be continued but not against imprisonment
Raghu Raj Singh RoushaVs.Shivam
Sundaram Promoters ((2009)2SCC363
Cr.P.C. S.397 against order refusing S.156
directing for inquiry Accused to be
impleaded
Hasmukh J. JhaveriVs.Shella Dadlani and
another1981CriLJ958
Cr.P.C. S.397 and 146 Not interlocutory
Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane Vs.Chandrasen
Jagdevrao Deshmukh 2008CriLJ3761
Cr.P.C. S.397 and 156(3) Interference with
order under Section 156(3) should normally
be confined to cases in which there are some
very exceptional circumstances
State of KeralaVs.K.M. Charia Abdullah
and Co.AIR1965SC1585
Cr.P.C. S.397 Distinction between Appeal
and Revision
K. Chinnaswamy ReddyVs.State of Andhra
PradeshAIR1962SC1788
Cr.P.C. S.397 Evi Act S.27 misinterpreted by
appellate Court Rehearing ordered
Madhu LimayeVs.The State of
MaharashtraAIR1978SC47
Cr.P.C. S.397 Interlocutory order test
explained
D. StephensVs.NosibollaAIR1951SC196 Cr.P.C. S.397 Jurisdiction not to be lightly
exercised when invoked by a private
complainant against an order of acquittal
against which the Government has a right of
appeal under section
Madhu LimayeVs.The State of
MaharashtraAIR1978SC47
Cr.P.C. S.397
Mohit alias Sonu and Anr.Vs.State of U.P.
and Anr.MANU-SC-0633-2013
Cr.P.C. S.397 Order which substantially
affects the right of the accused, or decides
certain rights of the parties cannot be said to
be an interlocutory order
Raj Kapoor and Ors.Vs.State and
Ors.AIR1980SC258
Cr.P.C. S.397 Petition under section 482
converted to revision
Mr. Joaquim Anthony D'Souza Anthony
D'SouzaVs.Mrs. Milinda Rosy D'Souza
Cr.P.C. S.397 Revision against interim
maintenace tenable
YogeshVs.The State of
Maharashtra2015(1)BomCR(Cri)750
Cr.P.C. S.397 Revision against order
directing complainant to remain present for
verification is not tenable
Kaptan Singh and others Vs.State of M.P.
and anotherAIR1997SC2485
Cr.P.C. S.397 Revision order setting aside
acquittal and retrial direction upheld- I.O.
findings not evidence
State of Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh
Kuldip Singh and Others, 2004 (7) SCC
659
Cr.P.C. S.397 Revision
K.K. Patel and Anr.Vs.State of Gujarat
and Anr.AIR2000SC3346
Cr.P.C. S.397 Test whether interlocutory
Madhu LimayeVs.The State of
MaharashtraAIR1978SC47
Cr.P.C. S.397 What is interim order is
explained
Kaptan Singh and others Vs.State of M.P.
and anotherAIR1997SC2485
Cr.P.C. S.401 Scope of revision explained
In Re_ District and Sessions Judge Raisen
2005(3)MPLJ26
Cr.P.C. S.409(2) Sessions Judge has power
to transfer partheard sessions case without
hearing
EmperorVs.Chunilal
Hargovan1926(28)BOMLR1023
Cr.P.C. S.412 (Old) Accused who pleaded
guilty can contend that his conviction was
illegal
Mr. Parkar Hasan Abdul GafoorVs.State of
Maharashtra & others1999(5)BomCR481
Cr.P.C. S.413 Surety is not automatically
discharged
DhanapalVs.State by Public Prosecutor
2009 Cri.L.J. 4647
Cr.P.C. S.417 Criminal Appellate Court
When can interefere
Aher Raja KhimaVs.The State of
SaurashtraAIR1956SC217
Cr.P.C. S.417 It is not enough to take a
different view of the evidence and there must
also be substantial and compelling reasons
for holding that the trial Court was wrong
Shankar Kerba Jadhav and Ors.Vs.The
State of MaharashtraAIR1971SC840
Cr.P.C. S.423(1) High Court set aside
acquittal by sessions. It can exceed original
sentence Appellate Courts Power of
punishment.doc
M.R. Kudva Appellant vs State Of Andhra
Pradesh 2007 (1) Crimes 50 (SC)
Cr.P.C. S.427 Concurrent plea has been
rejected as offences were different
Sadashiv Chhokha Sable Sadashiv
Chhokha Sable vs State Of
Maharashtra1993 CriLJ 1469
Cr.P.C. S.427 Cr.P.C. Undergoing sentence
means
Bapurao Trimbakrao SonawaneVs.The
State of Maharashtra and The
Superintendent of
Police2009(111)BOMLR1271
Cr.P.C. S.427 Different cheques of same
transaction with common notice can be trial
at one trial
Emperor vs Waman Dinkar Kelkar 20
BOMLR 998
Cr.P.C. S.427
Rajendra B. Choudhari vs State Of
Maharashtra And Anr 2007CriLJ844
Cr.P.C. S.427 Four cases of S.138 NI Act
consecutive sentence justified
Gulab Gaibu Shaikh Vs The State Of
Maharashtra 2001ALLMR(Cri)1404
Cr.P.C. S.427
Ranjit Singh vs Union Territory Of
Chandigarh AIR 1991 SC 2296
Cr.P.C. S.427
Cr.P.C. S.427 Sentence No Policy Soman
Vs State of Kerala 2012(12)SCALE719
Cr.P.C. S.427 State Of Maharashtra vs
Raju Dadaba Borge 2001 CriLJ 3638
Cr.P.C. S.427 Sunil Anandrao Sawant Vs
Government Of Maharashtra
Ammavasai and AnrVs.Inspector of Police
and Ors.AIR2000SC3544
Cr.P.C. S.427 Totality of sentence has been
considered
Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim
Ahmed BhattiVs.Assistant Collector of
Customs AIR1988SC2143
Cr.P.C. S.427 Totality of sentence has to be
considered
Sadashiv Chhokha Sable Sadashiv
Chhokha Sable vs State Of
Maharashtra1993 CriLJ 1469
Cr.P.C. S.427 Undergoing sentence means
M.R. KudvaVs.State of Andhra
PradeshAIR2007SC568
Cr.P.C. S.427 Whether concurrent or
consecutive has to be considered by the latter
Court convicting
Narayanan NambeesanVs.The State of
Maharashtra1974(76)BOMLR690
Cr.P.C. S.428 Courts should specify the pre-
conviction detention. Procedural law is
retrospective gives benefit to all convicts
Shiv Mohan SinghVs.The State (Delhi
Administration)AIR1977SC949
Cr.P.C. S.428 Death sentence validity upheld
Namdeo @ Ram Krushna KhotVs.The
State of Maharashtra2006(6)MhLj783
Cr.P.C. S.428 Set off if not given simple
misc. application is sufficient
State of Maharashtra and Anr.vs.Najakat
Alia Mubarak Ali AIR2001SC2255
Cr.P.C. S.428 Set off is entitled for the
period of detention in the instant crime
though during same period he was
undergoing sentence in another case
Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Najakat Alia
Mubarak Ali AIR2001SC2255
Cr.P.C. S.428 Set off of the detention in
sentenced case is available even if accused
was simultaneous undergoing sentence in
other case
Dinesh M.N. (S.P.)Vs.State of
GujaratAIR2008SC2318
Cr.P.C. S.429(2) Trial is not likely to be
concluded in the near future or the period of
incarceration would not be sufficient for
granting bail
SC in Swamy Shraddananda Murali
Manohar Mishra vs Vs.State Of Karnataka
on 22 July, 2008
Cr.P.C. S.433 Life imprisonment with
direction for rest of life
State of Haryana and Ors.Vs.Jagdish and
HarpalAIR2010SC1690Remission
Cr.P.C. S.433A Case of convict was to be
considered on strength of policy on existing
date of his conviction
State of Haryana and Ors.Vs.Jagdish and
HarpalAIR2010SC1690
Cr.P.C. S.433A For remission policy as on
conviction date would prevail. If beneficial
to convict policy as on date of consideration
also applicable
Mulla and Anr.Vs.State of Uttar
PradeshAIR2010SC942
Cr.P.C. S.433A Life imprisonment is for 20
years unless directed otherwise
Rasiklal Vs. Kisore Khanchand
WadhwaniAIR2009SC1341
Cr.P.C. S.436 Bail in bailable offences is rule
Salim Ikramuddin Ansari and
Anr.Vs.Officer-in-Charge, Borivali Police
Station and Ors.2004(4)MhLj725
Cr.P.C. S.436 Court to call information
whether the accused was released on bail or
not
Sukhwant Singh & Ors. Vs. State Of
Punjab (2009) 7 SCC 559
Cr.P.C. S.436 Interim Bail is inherent
Siddharam Satlingappa MhetreVs.State of
Maharashtra and Ors.AIR2011SC312
Cr.P.C. S.436
Monit MalhotraVs.The State of
Rajasthan1991CriLJ806
Cr.P.C. S.436 The accused in bailable
offence bailed out by police need not apply
to the Maigsitrate for fresh bail
Siddharam Satlingappa MhetreVs.State of
Maharashtra and Ors.AIR2011SC312
Cr.P.C. S.436 to 450
Sandeep Jain Vs National Capital Territory
of Delhi Rep. by Secretary, Home Deptt.
(18.01.2000 - SC)
Cr.P.C. S.437 Accused cannot be kept in jail
for failure to make payment as per bail order.
UttamkumarVs.The State of
Maharashtra2012BomCR(Cri)697
Cr.P.C. S.437 and 439 Accused again
arrested for added offence
Uttamkumar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
2012 Bom C.R.(Cri) 697
Cr.P.C. S.437 and 439 After bail police
added life or death section Magistrate cannot
release otherwise he can additional surety
Bom HC Ambarish Rangshahi Patnigere vs
The State Of Maharashtra
2012(1)MhLj900
Cr.P.C. S.437 and I.P.C. S.409 JMFC has
power to grant bail
Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V.
Vijay Sai Reddy AIR2013SC2216
Cr.P.C. S.437 Bail cancelled accused rected
to surrender
Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs
Cbi
Cr.P.C. S.437 Bail considerations
State of MaharashtraVs.Kaushar Yasin
Qureshi and another1996(2)MhLj485
Cr.P.C. S.437 Bail for S.326 by Magistrate
sustained, bail for S.302 cancelled
Sundeep Kumar BafnaVs.State of
Maharashtra and Anr.2014(4)SCALE215
Cr.P.C. S.437 Before taking the accused into
judicial custody there would be arrest
Nandini BhatnagarVs.State Govt. of NCT
of DelhiI(2013)DMC495
Cr.P.C. S.437 Condition not to go abroad
without permission deleted
Km. Hema MishraVs.State of U.P. and
Ors.AIR2014SC1066
Cr.P.C. S.437 High Court shall not direct
subordinate to decide bail application on
same day Interim bail is permissible,
UP FB in Amarawati and Anr.
(Smt.)Vs.State of U.P.2005CriLJ755
Cr.P.C. S.437 High Court should ordinarily
not direct any subordinate court to decide the
bail application the same day-
Sukhwant singh vs state of punjab
2010CriLJ1435 and (2009) 7 SCC 559
Cr.P.C. S.437 Interim Bail is Inherent Power
The Balasaheb Satbhai Merchant ... vs The
State Of Maharashtra 2012BomCR(Cri)841
Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate can grant bail in
S.409 IPC as triable by himself held by
Justice Potdar
EmperorVs.Rautmal Kanumal
MarwadiAIR1940Bom40
Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has inherent power
to cancel bail which was granted by another
Magistrate for the smooth trial
Batta Hanuman Vishwanath Nehare Vs.
State Of Maharashtra 2001(3)MhLj465
Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has no power of
bail in life term cases held by Justice
Ramji Vs.State of Punjab MANU-PH-
0150-2001
Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has power to grant
bail in offences triable by him PH HC
Mr. Ishan Vasant Deshmukh alias Prasad
Vasant KulkarniVs.The State of
Maharashtra2011(2)MhLj361R.C. Chavan,
J
Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has power to grant
bail in S.409 and 467 IPC case
Allahabad HC Ram Bharoshi and
Ors.Vs.State of U.P. and
Anr.2004(3)ACR2563
Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has power to grant
bail in sessions triable offence not punishable
with life or death
Prahlad Singh Bhati vs N.C.T., Delhi AIR
2001 SC 1444
Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate shall not grant bail
in sessions triable offence Anticipatory bail
for lessor offence
Jyoti Kaut Kohli Vs. State of Maha Cr.P.C. S.437 Powers of Magistrate referred
for larger bench
Dr. Raghubir SharanVs.The State of
BiharAIR1964SC1
Cr.P.C. S.437 Second Opinion -When
medical reason is a ground for bail the
Magistrate can call for detailed report from
medical officer
Ganeshanan Lakshmanan and Anr.Vs.The
State of MaharashtraMANU-MH-0345-
2009
Cr.P.C. S.437 Solvency Certificate need not
be insisted for always
Dr. Raghubir SharanVs.The State of
BiharAIR1964SC1
Cr.P.C. S.437 When medical reason is a
ground for bail the Magistrate can call for
detailed report from medical officer
Santosh Bhaurao RautVs.State of
Maharashtra1989MhLJ162
Cr.P.C. S.437(1)(i) attracted even if the law
prescribes death or imprisonment for life as
the maximum
BhagwatVs.State of Maharashtra and Anr Cr.P.C. S.437(5) Cancellation of bail for
breach of condition of attending police
station was set aside
Union of India and others Vs.Major
General Madan Lal Yadav AIR 1996 SC
1340
Cr.P.C. S.437(6) Trial commences when the
matter is posted for evidence
Cr.P.C. S.437A Allahabad HC Syed
ArmanVs.State of U.P.2012ACR1681
Balkrishna Mahadev LadVs.State of
Maharashtra2012BomCR(Cri)300
Cr.P.C. S.437A and 390 Accused even after
acquittal can be detained for not furnishing
surety
Sareena, O.P.Vs.State of
KeralaILR2013(1)Kerala537
Cr.P.C. S.437A not mandatory
2012_STPL(Web)_470_SC Cr.P.C. S.438 An Absconding accused is not
entitled for anticipatory bail
Rakesh Baban BorhadeVs.State of
MaharashtraDecided On_ 19.11.2014
Cr.P.C. S.438 Anticipatory bail cannot be
granted as a rule but subject to satisfaction
that the accused would not misuse
Asaram Sitaram PadoleVs.Yadaorao
Raghobaji Hatwar and
Ors.1991(93)BOMLR994
Cr.P.C. S.438 Anticipatory bail continues till
cancellation or trial is over
Narinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. vs. Union
of India and ors.(2002)2SCC210
Cr.P.C. S.438 Anticipatory bail refused in
while collored crimes of cheating in
numerous states
State State of Assam and Anr.Vs.Dr.
Brojen Gogol and Ors.AIR1997SC4101
Cr.P.C. S.438 Application to be heard by the
High Court having jurisdiction over the place
of offence with notice to that
Sumit MehtaVs.State of N.C.T. of Delhi Cr.P.C. S.438 Deposit condition deleted
J. Bhatkar ordjud Cr.P.C. S.438 does not lie against non-
bailable warrant by Magistrate
MP HC
Dr._Pradeep_Kumar_Soni_vs_State_Of_M
adhya_Pradesh_on_13_March,_1990
Cr.P.C. S.438 High Court not to grant
anticipatory bail for crime in another state
Mukesh Kishanpuria Vs. State of West
Bengal 2010 (4) SCALE 649
Cr.P.C. S.438 Interim Bail -Grant of regular
bail includes power to grant interim bail
pending main application
Harjit SinghVs.Union of India (UOI) and
Ors.1994CriLJ3134
Cr.P.C. S.438 Jurisdiction lies with the court
having local jurisdiction
Dr. Pradeep Kumar SoniVs.State of
Madhya Pradesh1990CriLJ2055
Cr.P.C. S.438 Jurisdiction lies with the court
where offence took place
State of Assam and Anr.Vs.Dr. Brojen
Gogol and Ors.AIR1997SC4101
Cr.P.C. S.438 Jurisdiction_ Application to be
heard by the High Court having jurisdiction
over the place of offence with notice to that
State
Narinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. vs.Union
of India and ors
Cr.P.C. S.438 Not applicable to person
already arrested and in prison
Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and
Ors.Vs.State of PunjabAIR1980SC1632
Cr.P.C. S.438 When can anticipatory bail
granted is explained
Niranjan Singh and Anr.Vs.Prabhakar
Rajaram Kharote and Ors.AIR1980SC785
Cr.P.C. S.439 Appearance of accused before
the Court amounts to custody
C.B.I.New Delhi Vs. Abhishek Verma Cr.P.C. S.439 Bail matter
Anilkumar vs State Of Maharashtra on
15.11.1989
Cr.P.C. S.439 Cancellation of bail
Anwari BegumVs.Sher Mohammad and
Anr.AIR2005SC3530
Cr.P.C. S.439 Factors to be considered for
bail are discussed
Amarawati and Anr. (Smt.)Vs.State of
U.P.2005CriLJ755
Cr.P.C. S.439 Interim bail can be granted on
the same day UP FB in
Neeru YadavVs.State of
U.P.2014(14)SCALE59
Cr.P.C. S.439 Parity ground is not absolute
Antecedents of applicant may warrant
rejection of bail
Niranjan Singh & Anr vs Prabhakar
Rajaram Kharote & ors 1980 AIR 785
Cr.P.C. S.439 Submitting to the Court also
amounts to custody
Sundeep Kumar BafnaVs.State of
Maharashtra and Anr.MANU-SC-0239-
2014
Cr.P.C. S.439 Surrender before Sessions
Court and bail application
Dinesh Singh Arjun SinghVs.State of U.P.
and Pramod Singh Bhagwan Singh
Cr.P.C. S.439(1) Bail order cancelled by
High court itself
Jai KrishanVs.The State of Punjab and
Others2010(1)RCR(Criminal)249 Punjab
Cr.P.C. S.439(2) Bail obtained by fraud
Dinesh M_N_ (S_P_) vs State Of Gujarat
on 28 April, 2008
Cr.P.C. S.439(2) Bail when to cancel
Puran, Shekhar And Anr vs Rambilas &
Anr., State Of ... on 3 May, 2001
Cr.P.C. S.439(2) Cancellation of bail
justified
Puran, Shekhar And Anr vs Rambilas &
Anr., State Of ... on 3 May, 2001
Cr.P.C. S.439(2) Cancellation of bail
Dr_ Narendra K Amin vs State Of Gujarat
And Anr on 28 April, 2008
Cr.P.C. S.439(2) When can the bail be
cancelled
State (Delhi Administration)Vs.Sanjay
GandhiAIR1978SC961
Cr.P.C. S.439(2)_ Bail can be cancelled on
allegation of tampering Bombay case
referred in
Free Legal Aid CommitteeVs.State of
BiharAIR1982SC1463
Cr.P.C. S.441(3) and 209 Bail bond is for
appearance before Sessions Court also
Mr. Sajal Kumar Mitra and Ors.Vs.The
State of Maharashtra2011CriLJ2744
Cr.P.C. S.445 Pending surety verification
Magistrates has power to release accused on
cash surety and thereafter asking him to
furnish solvent sureties
Bhoja Babu Salian vs State Of
Maharashtra1983 (2) BomCR 165
Cr.P.C. S.446 Forfeit first and then issue
show cause notice to recover amount
Ghulam Mehdi vs State Of Rajasthan
AIR1960SC1185
Cr.P.C. S.446 Show cause notice necessary
Divisional Forest Officer and Anr.Vs.G.V.
Sudhakar Rao and Ors.MANU-SC-0069-
1985
Cr.P.C. S.451 and 452 explained in Forest
Act Case
General Insurance Council and
Ors.Vs.State of Andhra Pradesh and
Ors.2010CriLJ2883
Cr.P.C. S.451 and 457 Supreme Court
directions regarding custody of seized
properties
Delhi Excise Act State (NCT of
Delhi)Vs.Narender MANU-SC-0010-2014
Cr.P.C. S.451 Magistrate has no jurisdiction
to release vehicle under
State Bank of IndiaVs.Rajendra Kumar
Singh and Ors.AIR1969SC401
Cr.P.C. S.451 Party adversely affected
should be heard before the Court makes an
order for return of the seized property
State (NCT of
Delhi)Vs.Narender2014ALLMR(Cri)736
Cr.P.C. S.457 and Excise Act Due to
confiscation clause Magistrate has no
jurisdiction to release vehicle
State of KarnatakaVs.K.A.
KunchindammedAIR2002SC1875
Cr.P.C. S.457 and Forest Act Magistrate has
no jurisdiction to give interim custody
Navin Vasantraj Modh Vs State of
Maharashtra 2012BomCR(Cri)685
Cr.P.C. S.457 Aplication was directed to be
decided at the end
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai And C.M. ... vs
State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2002
Cr.P.C. S.457 Directions regarding disposal
of seized properties
State of U.P. and Anr.Vs.Lalloo
Singh(2007)7SCC334
Cr.P.C. S.457 is not applicable in view of
S.50 of Wild Life Act
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M.
MudaliarVs.State of
GujaratAIR2003SC638
Cr.P.C. S.457 Supreme Court guidelines for
disposal of properties
Prakash Tarachand SakhreVs.Ashok
Pundloikrao Wajge and
Anr.2001CriLJ3024
Cr.P.C. S.457 When it is proved that T.T.
forms were submitted non-transfer of
registration of vehicle does not matter
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs.V.K.
SehgalAIR1999SC3706
Cr.P.C. S.465(2) Court to consider whether
objection had raised objection PC Act S.19
Japani SahooVs.Chandra Sekhar
MohantyAIR2007SC2762
Cr.P.C. S.468 Date of filing complaint and
not cognizance be counted
Limination Arun Vyas & Anr vs Anita
Vyas on 14 May, 1999
Cr.P.C. S.468 Limitaion Rational and
Purpose behind
Japani SahooVs.Chandra Sekhar
MohantyAIR2007SC2762
Cr.P.C. S.468 Limitation Date of filing
complaint and not cognizance be counted
State Of Punjab vs Sarwan Singh1981
SCALE (1)619
Cr.P.C. S.468(2) Bar of limitation on
prosecutions was clearly to prevent the
parties from filing cases after a long time
Jethmal Himmatmal Jain and
othersVs.State of
Maharashtra1981CriLJ1813
Cr.P.C. S.473 Delay should be explained in
the complaint or separate application and
Court should pass speaking order
Rakesh Kumar JainVs.State Through CBI
AIR 2000 SC 2754
Cr.P.C. S.473 Delay stood explained
Cr.P.C. S.473 Interest of justice cannot be
interpreted to mean in the interest of
prosecution
Mrs. Sarah MathewVs.The Institute of
Cardio Vascular DiseasesMANU-SC-
1210-2013
Cr.P.C. S.473 Notice to accused before
taking cognizance is not contemplated
Kanwardeepsingh Harbansingh
BediVs.The State of
Maharashtra2010CriLJ315
Cr.P.C. S.475 and Court Martial (A.o.J)
Rules, 1952 Notice to Commandant
necessary
Cr.P.C. S.475 Central Govt to decide
Military Authority or Criminal Court
Accused did not ask for counsel hence no
prejudice
Cr.P.C. S.482 and 397 Bombay HC Ramona
M. Chandiramani Revision against issue
process order tenable
Kailash Shreekisan ChaurasiaVs.State of
Maharashtra & Ors.2012BomCR(Cri)83
Cr.P.C. S.482 Avinash Madhukar
Mukhedkar vs. The State of Maharashtra
NOT FOLLOWED
Modilal Kaluram Kachhara and
etc.Vs.State of Maharashtra MANU-MH-
0041-1988
Cr.P.C. S.482 Case transfer from one
Magistrate to another Magistrate rejected
Abasaheb Yadav Honmane And ___ vs
The State Of Maharashtra on 12 March,
2008
Cr.P.C. S.482 No compounding of
noncompoundable offences
Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia & Ors_ Vs_
State Of Punjab & Ors_ on 5 May, 2009
Cr.P.C. S.482 When can FIR be quashed
Gian SinghVs.State of Punjab and
Anr.2012BomCR(Cri)428
Cr.P.C. S.482 Which offences can be
quashed SC in
Amrut GajbhiyeVs. The State of
Maharashtra1974CriLJ1075
Cr.P.C. S.499(1) Old Code Accused did not
execute PRBond Hence, surety not
enforceable Mahadeo
Rengaswami NaickerVs.Muruga
NaickenAIR1954Mad169
Cr.P.C. S.511 Old Code Judge must watch
that justice triumphs
Talab Haji HussainVs.Madhukar
Purshottam Mondkar and
Anr.AIR1958SC376
Cr.P.C. S.561A (Old Section) High Court
can cancel bail in bailable offence
State of GujaratVs.Krushnmorari
Ramkrushna Gupta and
Ors(1988)2GLR965
Cr.P.C. S.Pleading guilty After explaining
charge Court should inform about minimum
sentence unless special reasons are shown
The State Of Maharashtra vs Manik Mohan
Gaikwad on 26 November, 2008
Cr.P.C. T.I. Parade and purpose No provision
in Cr.P.C. which obliges investigation
agency to hold identification parade
Sanction Matajog DobeyVs.H.C.
BhariAIR1956SC44
Cr.PC. S.197 Constitution Bench on
necessity of
Banslochan Lal and
Anr.Vs.EmperorAIR1930Pat195
How to deal with certain advocates
Human Rights CommissionVs.State of
Gujarat and Ors.(2009)6SCC342
Fair Trial and About Witnesses protection
National
Nanak ChandVs.The State of
PunjabAIR1955SC274
I.P.C. S.34 AND 149 Distinction is explained
Ramesh Vithal PatilVs.State of Karnataka
and Ors.2014(2)Crimes227(SC)
IPC S.304B and 498A conviction under
section 306
K. Prema S. Rao and Anr.Vs.Yadla
Srinivasa Rao and OrsAIR2003SC11
IPC S.304B charged but convicted for
S.498A and 306
State of MaharashtraVs.Vishwanath
Tukaram Umale and Ors.AIR1979SC1825
IPC S.411 and Police Act S.124 and Railway
Property Act S.3 Possession of property need
not be necessarily a subsisting possession
Union of India (UOI) and Anr.Vs.B.N.
Ananti Padmanabiah etc.AIR1971SC1836
JMFC has jurisdiction throughout District
Madhav RaojiVs.StateAIR1952Bom385 M.V. Act Old S.113 Conviction upheld
though summons were served after 28 days
Ashok Gyanchand Vohra vs The State Of
Maharashtra And Anr
MCOCA S.9 and 23 Private Complaint
tenable
Kartar SinghVs.State of
Punjab(1994)3SCC569
Mens rea and Law and Order and Pith and
Substance
Sau Devakibai Vs State of Maharashtra
Bombay HC decided on 24.07.2014
MRTP Act S.142 Prosecution not tenable for
want of previous sanction
Ramesh vs State Of Rajasthan on 22
February, 2011
Murder of Money Lender Case
Mahadeo Amrut GajbhiyeVs. The State of
Maharashtra1974CriLJ1075
Old Cr.P.C. S.499(1) Accused did not
execute PRBond Hence, surety not
enforceable
Association Vs.Union of India (UOI)
Through its Secretary,AIR2011Bom171
PCPNDT Circular for online information
was upheld Radiological and Imaging
Diwan BhaiVsUnion of India and
OrsMANU DE 1823 2001
Plea not signed by accused no interference
Thomas DanaVs.The State of
PunjabAIR1959SC375
Penalty and Punishment difference
Champaklal GaneshmalVs.The State of
MaharashtraAIR1975SC160
Police Act S.124 Possession of foreign made
wrist watches unexplained Hence conviction
upheld
Aher Raja Khima vs The State Of
Saurashtra on 22 December, 1955
Police Credibility
The_State_Of_Maharashtra_And_Etc._..._
vs_Saeed_Sohail_Sheikh_Etc._Etc._on_2_
November,_2012
Prisoners Act S.29(2) Not applicable to
undertrial prisoners
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma ROLE
OF PROSECUTOR
Prosecutor's role explained and Delay in
recording the statement of the witnesses do
not necessarily discredit their testimonies
Shri Sandeep Indravadan SagarVs.State of
Maharashtra and others decided on
10.01.2013
Rubber stamp use -mentioned
The Food InspectorVs.M. Pandarinath and
Anr.1992(2)APLJ396
Sanction and Consent Explained
Hardeep Singh SohalVs.State of Punjab
through(2004)11SCC612
TADA S.15(1) Confession cannot be used
against coaccused in other than joint trial