That the accused persons despite having no right to the aforesaid property, have mortgaged the same dishonestly and has caused wrongful loss to complainant and wrongful gain to the accused persons. Breach of contract simpliciter does not constitute an offence. Section 156 of the Code reads as under:- 156. The petition is disposed of with the following directions : 10 i. Taking cognizance of an offence is distinguishable from initiation of proceedings.
A person who is entitled to be heard in an original proceeding may legitimately assert a right to be heard when a substantive right created by an order passed in that proceeding is sought to be assailed before a higher forum at the behest of another person. An interlocutory order is an order which does not affect or adjudicate upon the substantial rights of parties. While considering the question in greater detail this Court endorsed the observations of Justice Das Gupta in the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. The provisions of Section 154 1 do not admit to an element of discretion vesting in the officer in charge of a police station on whether or not to record the substance of the information received by him of the commission of a cognizable offence in the prescribed form. The distinction between infringement of civil rights and committing a cognizable offence within the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other law is clear and in the later it is beyond the matter of mere compensation.
In a subsequent decision in A N Santhanam Vs K Elangovan22, a Bench of two learned Judges of the Supreme Court considered whether the High Court had committed an error in disposing of a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant without notice to the accused. Sub-section 3 of Section 156, however, allows any magistrate who is empowered under Section 190 to order an investigation into a cognizable case by an officer in charge of a police station. There is nothing illegal in doing so. It is a stage where the Court should exercise its judicial powers to proceed with the matter further by summoning the accused or by directing investigation on certain issues by the police agency or even requiring the complainant to lead evidence at presummons stage. If it does not work, then you can file it by going to the court personally. And then the complainant got search conducted with the Registrar of Companies, and came to know that accused No. This was approved finally vide resolution of the Corporation No.
In that case, an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting an application moved by the complainant under Section 319 of the Code was set aside by the High Court and the trial Court was directed to examine the accused-appellants. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. I have perused the aforesaid judgments and find that in all those judgments it has been held that jurisdiction can be conferred on the Court either where the offence has been commenced or where it has been completed and even where part of the offence was committed. Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Thomas applied his mind to the complaint filed on August 3, 1957, with a view to taking cognizance of an offence. The rule of establishing the charges beyond reasonable doubt is applicable to a complaint case as well.
That the assurance about additional land of 2,500 Sq. The statement of law spelt out in paragraph 57 b needs to be clarified to bring it in line with the enunciated law. J 63 vide para 8 that no one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency. The prospective accused is not arrayed as a party. In the present case, the learned Magistrate without applying his mind had directed an investigation by the police. If the magistrate were to proceed under Section 200 and the complaint is dismissed under Section 203, whether pre- or post-process, the persons who are suspected of having committed the crime have been held to be entitled to be heard in a revision by the complainant under Section 397 against the order of rejection. Eqbal and Shiva Kirti Singh, relied on a two Judge Bench Judgment of Supreme Court in and another and held as follows; This Court explained that registration of an F.
However, with the development and expansion of principles of criminal jurisprudence, this has undergone a definite change. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in Section 415 are not found, it cannot be said that there was an offence punishable under Sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the Code. But I am not inclined to do so considering the fact that the complaint was lodged as far back as in the year 1989. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same. Shirish Chunilal Dalal and accused No. In other words, where the complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code, upon challenge to the legality of the said order being laid by the complainant in a revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, the persons who are arraigned as accused in the complaint have a right to be heard in such revision petition. To us it appears to be essential that normally a person should invoke the provisions of Section 154 of the Code before he can take recourse to the powers of the Magistrate under Section 156 3.
Let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for transmission before a Full Bench. Under Section 154 1 , an officer in charge of a police station is under a mandate and an obligatory duty to cause the substance of the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence to be entered in a book to be kept by the officer in the form prescribed by the State Government. Now we shall proceed to deal with other aspect of the order of reference. It is submitted that Complainant issued a legal notice on 24. In this case, the petitioner had not adopted either of the procedure provided under the Code. This view was agreed in. For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to.
In such cases a Magistrate can either order reinvestigation or dispose of the complaint according to law. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Though, under Section 202 the magistrate may postpone the issuance of process and direct an investigation to be made by a police officer, it is well settled that this investigation under Section 202 is for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The duty cast on the learned Magistrate, while exercising power under Section 156 3 Cr. Therefore, it is considered necessary to verify the details of such complaints by examining the complainant on oath under Section 200 of Cr.
We answer the question accordingly. This distinction is part of the well settled principle of our law. This may have grave consequences. The stage, whether it be pre-process or post-process has been held not to matter. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates. He filed a Section 9 petition, which also was rejected on 04. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.