Skip to main content

Supreme Court extends time limit for police to register FIRs from a week to 15 days

A Bench led by Chief Justice P Sathasivam appreciated the possible difficulties of investigators in concluding inquiries within seven days.

The Supreme Court on 5th March extended the time limit from a week to 15 days for police to conclude preliminary inquiries and register FIRs in criminal cases.
The court also set an outer time-limit of six weeks for extraordinary cases where police will need to specify the reasons why the inquiries could not be completed within a fortnight.
A Bench led by Chief Justice P Sathasivam appreciated the possible difficulties of investigators in concluding the inquiries within seven days in cases relating to white-collar crimes, economic offences and matrimonial disputes.
The bench agreed with the submissions of Additional Solicitor-General Sidharth Luthra that, in a variety of cases involving massive documents and expert evidence and also especially in matrimonial cases, where the first attempt should be made for reconciliation, the time-limit of seven days may be too short to conclude preliminary probe.
Luthra, who appeared for the Delhi Police, had requested the court to extend this time limit to three months by modifying the court’s November 2013 ruling that ordered for concluding all such inquiries in a week’s time.
Even as the application for modification was moved by the Delhi Police, the court order will have implications across the country since the new time-limit will now apply to police of all the states and Union territories.
In its plea, the Delhi Police had pointed out that the time of seven days not only put severe stress on the available resources of the police department but could also lead to reaching erroneous conclusions, which might eventually result in misuse of criminal justice system.
According to police, it was not possible to conclude inquiries into five kinds of offences — white-collar crimes, matrimonial disputes, medical negligence, corruption cases and cases, where there was delay in reporting the matter.
Delhi Police, while informing the court that it could successfully resolve more than 48 percent marital disputes through conciliation in 2012, pointed out that when such cases were reported, initial attempt should be to amicably resolve the matter without invoking criminal law. Therefore, some reasonable time must be accorded to give conciliation a shot.
These statistics impressed the Bench and it acknowledged the need to give reconciliation a chance for reunion of couples.
By its November verdict, a Constitution bench had ruled that the police were obligated under the law to straightaway register FIRs when information disclosed commission of cognizable or serious offences and that it could not delay the FIR on the ground of conducting preliminary inquiry first.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...