Skip to main content

Revision application maintainable against order of Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC

In NISHU WADHWA versus SIDDHARTH WADHWA, the questions before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was :-

i. Whether a person who has not been summoned as an accused can file a revision petition ?

ii. Whether revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was maintainable or not?

iii. Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and pass order thereon as the investigation had been transferred?

iv. Whether directions by the Metropolitan Magistrate to add Sections in the FIR would amount to interference during investigation?

The Hon'ble court held that :-

i & ii) As decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Randhirsinh Dipsinh Parmar vs. State of Gujarat & Ors, the issue that since the accused has not been summoned as an accused and has no right to file a revision petition is alien, while deciding an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The said issue crops up when the Magistrate entertains the complaint and on taking cognizance proceeds as a complaint case. In case directions are issued for registration of FIR immediately, on registration of FIR, the person against whom allegations are made in the FIR attains the status of an accused. His rights in so far as the Police can summon him for investigation, arrest him without warrants for allegations of cognizable offences are duly affected. In a situation where the fundamental right of freedom and liberty of a person is affected, it cannot be held that he has no right to be heard at that stage. Thus to hold that since directions only have been issued under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and no cognizance has been taken thus no revision would lie would be an erroneous reading of the decisions of the Supreme Court.

iii) Section 154 Cr.P.C. does not qualify the territorial jurisdiction of the officer in-charge who receives the information to register the same, however, Sections 155 and 156 Cr.P.C. qualify the territorial jurisdiction of the officer in-charge to investigate offences within the limits of such station. Therefore, a Magistrate can direct the officer in-charge of a police station to investigate a cognizable offence which is within the jurisdiction of its local area. Thus a Magistrate is required to adhere to the territorial jurisdiction and in case it is not empowered to try the said offence, it has no jurisdiction to pass order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

iv) A bare reading of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. shows that the Magistrate is empowered to direct investigation into the allegation of cognizable offence which he has jurisdiction to enquire into or try if after taking recourse to Sections 154 and 154(3) Cr.P.C., no FIR is registered. If Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. empower the Magistrate to direct the police officer concern to register FIR and investigate the offences alleged, the same would mean all the offences mentioned in the complaint. The police officer who registers FIR and enter into investigation cannot decline to investigate some offences and leave other if on the allegations in the FIR, the same are found to be made out........Thus, when a Magistrate on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directs that all the offences mentioned in the complaint be investigated into, the Magistrate is not exercising its power illegally or beyond its jurisdiction.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more