156(3) without FIR

Question No. (i)

MANU/MH/1459/2009” Mr. Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani,  vs. The State of Maharashtra through Senior Inspector,  (10.12.2009 - BOMHC) : MANU/MH/1459/2009

 

Whether in absence of a complaint to the police, a complaint can be made directly before a Magistrate ?

 

Answer

 

Normally a person should invoke the provisions of Section 154 of the Code before he takes recourse to the power of the Magistrate competent to take cognizance under Section 190 of the Code, under Section 156(3). At least an intimation to the police of commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154(1) would be a condition precedent for invocation of powers of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code. We would hasten to add here that this dictum of law is not free from exception. There can be cases where noncompliance to the provisions of Section 154(3) would not divest the Magistrate of his jurisdiction in terms of Section 156(3). There could be cases where the police fail to act instantly and the facts of the case show that there is possibility of the evidence of commission of the offence being destroyed and/or tampered with or an applicant could approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code directly by way of an exception as the Legislature has vested wide discretion in the Magistrate.

 

Question No. (ii)

 

Whether without filing a complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d) and praying only for an action under Section 156(3), a complaint before a Magistrate was maintainable ?

 

Answer

 

A Petition under Section 156(3) cannot be strictly construed as a complaint in terms of Section 2(d) of the Code and absence of a specific or improperly worded prayer or lack of complete and definite details would not prove fatal to a petition under Section 156(3), in so far as it states facts constituting ingredients of a cognizable offence. Such petition would be maintainable before the Magistrate.

 

Mr. Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani,  vs. The State of Maharashtra through Senior Inspector,  (10.12.2009 - BOMHC) : MANU/MH/1459/2009

Party seeking to comply with the judgment and taking time from court cannot later challenge it

Union of India v. Puja Dubey 2011 SCC OnLine Del 4879

 

7. We are of the view that a party to a lis if has represented to the Court that it intends to comply with the judgment and on such representation seeks extension of time prescribed for such compliance, and thereby acquiesces to the judgment, ought not to be permitted to subsequently challenge the said judgment without setting out as to why instead of complying, a decision for challenging the judgment has been taken. This is more so when such party to the litigation is the Government. It was so held by the Division Bench of this Court in Secretary, Govt. of India v. Sanjay Kumar MANU/DE/7428/2007 as also by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in UOI v. R. Velumurugan (2009) 3 CHN 170. An attempt to brush the dust under the carpet cannot be ruled out.

Failure to frame points of determination is not fatal in First Appeal

2017 (2) SCC 415
Sent from Phone

Supreme Court: Enlargement of Notice

Yomeshbhai Pranshankar Bhatt v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 6 SCC 312 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 944 at page 317

11. In view of this position under the Rules and having regard to the constitutional provision under Article 142, we do not think that this Court at the time of final hearing is precluded from considering the controversy in its entire perspective and in doing so, this Court is not inhibited by any observation in an order made at the time of issuing the notice.

 

Supreme Court passing order without notice to Respondent

State of Rajasthan v. Mahila Mandal, (2011) 15 SCC 499 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 615 at page 499

2. We are quite conscious of the fact that we are passing this order without giving notice to the respondent(s) because the controversy is very limited and giving notice would cause much greater financial hardship for the respondent(s). In this view of the matter, we are passing this order in absence of the respondent(s). In case the respondent(s) is/are still aggrieved then the respondent(s) would be at liberty to approach this Court.

 

Daughters in Family Settlement

Public Interest v. Private Interest

Brij Pal Sharma v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, (2005) 7 SCC 106 at page 109

17. We, however, clarify that dismissal of the appeal should not be construed as approval of the conduct of the statutory authority in the manner in which it is sought to be done. The statutory authority, like GDA, being the State within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution, is duty-bound to act in a manner, which would benefit the public interest, overlooking the private interest. It is trite law that when the private interest is pitted against the public interest, the later must prevail over the former. If such instances are brought to the notice of the Court in future, they would be examined on their own merits.