CrPC- Case Laws

UNIT-1
Subramanian Swamy and ors vs. Raju Tharu members, Juvenile Justice Board and anr.
(2013) 10 SCC 465
FACTS:

• A 23 yr old lady was brutally gang raped by 5 people in a moving bus. succumbed to her
injuries soon after the incident.
• Raju, was below 18 years of age on the date of commission of the crime.
• The majors were sentenced to the death penalty by the HC.
• Petitioners filed a Public Interest Litigation before the High Court of Delhi – rejected
applied to the Juvenile Justice Board – rejected

• Filed special leave petition against HC’s verdict with SC

• writ petition before the Supreme Court praying that the JJ Act be struck down as
unconstitutional and void insofar as it puts a blanket ban on the power of criminal
courts to try a juvenile offender for offenses committed by him/her under the Indian
Penal Code

ISSUES:

Whether or not the age limit of 18 years, as imposed by the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 should be
removed.

JUDGEMENT:

• The Delhi High Court declined to entertain the PIL on the ground that the Petitioners should
proceed on the remedy given under the Juvenile Justice Act.
• SLP and writ petition before the Supreme Court, the Court upheld the age limit of 18 years
to treat persons as ‘juvenile’.
• Raju, was sentenced to three years at a reformatory home, by the Juvenile Court.

UNIT-3
Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, 2013 (13) SCALE 559
PROVISIONS: 154

FACTS:

• Lalita Kumari (minor), through her father, has filed a petition in the Supreme Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or similar directions
for the protection of his kidnapped daughter.
• A written report was submitted to the officer in-charge of the police station who did not
take any action on the same.
• Later an FIR was registered by the Superintendent of Police and yet, no steps were taken for
apprehending the accused or for recovery of the girl.
ISSUE:

• Whether a police officer is bound to register an FIR upon receiving any information relating
to the commission of a cognizable offence under section 154 of the CrPC?
• Whether the police officer has the power to conduct a preliminary inquiry in order to test
the veracity of such information before registering the same?

JUDGEMENT:

• SC stated that it is mandatory to file the FIR u/s 154, if information discloses the commission
of a cognizable crime and no preliminary investigation is permissible in such a case.
• If investigation reveals a cognizable offence, the FIR must be reported. If such is not the
case, a copy of the entry of the closure must be sent to the first informant immediately and
not longer than 1 week.
• Exceptions under which preliminary injury can be made before FIR.
1. Family/Matrimonial
2. Commercial offences
3. Medical negl.
4. Corruption
• Conclusion of preliminary investigation shall not exceed 7 days and all records relating
thereto shall be reported in tribunal diary.

State of Orissa v. Sharat Chandra Sahu, (1996) 6 SCC 435 19

PROVISIONS: 494, 498A IPC / Section 155 (2) (4), 198 (1c)
FACTS:
R1- husband R2- wife

• R2 filed a written complaint with the Women's Commission stating that R1 had
entered into a second marriage.
• It was also claimed that he had been making money demands since their marriage
(amounts to harassment).
• The complaint was filed with the police station by the Women's Commission.
• charge-sheet was filed in the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate's Court, accusing R1 of
violating IPC S498-A and S494
• R1 appealed the Orissa HC under S482 CrPC for a stay of proceedings and dismissal of the
charges levelled against him.
• The petition was allowed in part by the High Court, which concluded that because R2 did not
actually file the charge under Section 494 IPC, the Magistrate could not have taken charge of
it under Section 198(1c) of the Code. As a consequence, the Magistrate's charge under
S494 IPC was dismissed, but the charge under S498-A IPC was upheld, and the appeal
under S482 CrPC was partially denied.

ISSUE:
• Is the High Court correct in dismissing the case under Section 494 of the IPC while upholding
the charge under Section 498A.
JUDGEMENT:
• HC quashed the charge under Section 494 IPC, is wholly erroneous and is based on complete
ignorance of the relevant statutory provisions.
• The offence under Section 494 IPC is non-cognizable and bailable and the police could not
take cognizance of this offence and that a complaint had to be filed before a Magistrate.
• The offence under Section 498-A IPC was a cognizable offence and the police was entitled to
take cognizance of the offence irrespective of the person who gave the first information to it

Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar, (1997) 8 SCC 476 21

PROVISIONS: S156 (3) ,190, 173 CrPC
FACTS:
• Appellant filed a complaint against 3 respondents - her husband, father- in-law and mother-
in-law, before the Chief Magistrate. – 498A & 406
• Magistrate passed an order under Section 156(3) CrPC - took cognizance upon the said
charge- sheet and thereafter framed charge u/s 406 IPC only as, according to him, the
offence under Section 198A I P C was allegedly committed in the district of Karnal.
• Appellant filed another complaint u/s 498A IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal
and on this complaint the magistrate passed a similar order under Section 156(3) CrPC for
registration of a case and investigation.
• On that charge sheet the Magistrate took cognizance of the above offence and later on
framed charge u/s 240 CrPC.
• respondents filed petitions u/s 482 of the Code before the Punjab & Haryana High Court for
quashing of their proceedings were wrong and consequently all actions taken pursuant
thereto were illegal.

ISSUE:
• Whether or not a Magistrate after receiving a complaint and after directing investigation
under Section 156(3) of the Code and on receipt of the 'Police report' from the police can
issue notice to the complainant, records his statement the statements of other witnesses
and then issue process under Section 204 of the Code?

JUDGEMENT:
• According to the HC, u/s 156(3) of the Code a Magistrate can only direct investigation by the
police but he has no power to direct registration of a case.
• lay down the preposition that under Section 156(3)

Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409

PROVISIONS: 156, 482, 36

FACTS:

• Mr. S. Ravishankar who was a Major in the Indian Army was found dead at the Mathura
Railway station.
• After the investigation it was stated that the cause of death was due to an accident or
suicide.
 • Further two Courts of Inquiry were held by the Army officials wherein it was concluded that
Major S. Ravishankar had committed suicide.
• Mr. Sakiri Vasu, father of Major S. Ravishankar filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High
Court alleging that his son was murdered as he discovered the rampant corruption
happening in the Matura Unit of the army and thereby prayed that an investigation should
be carried out by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on this matter.
• The petition was dismissed rejecting the prayer. Dissatisfied with this the appellant by way
of special leave applied before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

• Whether Magistrate can interfere in case of improper or unfair investigation?

• Whether one can insist that investigation be carried out by a particular agency?

JUDGEMENT:

• It was held that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR
under Section 154 CrPC then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section
154(3) CrPC by an application in writing.
• The SC held that High Court was justified in rejecting CBI investigation as there was no
prima facie case calling for such investigation.
• Supreme Court dis-encouraged the practice of filing writ petition directly in the High Court
for non-registration of FIR and/or improper investigation.
• It was proposed that if a person is aggrieved that his FIR is not being filed or the police is
not doing proper investigation then such a person should first avail the alternative remedies
mentioned under Section 154(3) and Section 156(3) rather than directly approaching the
High Court.

Reference: CBI and Anr vs. Rajesh Gandhi and Anr (1997 Cr. L.J. 63)

In this it was held that no one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency. We fully
agree with the view in the aforesaid decision. An aggrieved person can only claim that the offence he
alleges be investigated properly, but he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any particular
agency of his choice.

UNIT-4
D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 6 SCC 642 30
PROVISIONS: guidelines to be followed while making arrests - 41, 46, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56, 57, 167, 174
and 176

FACTS:
• DK Basu, Executive Chairman of Legal Aid Services addressed a letter to the Supreme Court
of India calling his attention to deaths in police custody.
• He requested that the letter be treated as a Writ Petition within the “Public Interest
Litigation”.
 • While the writ petition was being considered, Mr. Ashok Kumar Johri addressed a letter to
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by highlighting the death of a man named Mahesh
Bihari from Aligarh in police custody. The letter was also treated as a Request for Writing
and was included along with D.K. Basu’s Request for Writing.
• The Court issued an order to all state governments and a notice was also issued to the Law
Commission requesting appropriate suggestions and guidelines within two months.
• In response to the notification, several states submitted affidavits

ISSUES:
• Increasing custodial crimes
• The arbitrariness of Policemen in arresting a person.
• Need to specify some guidelines to make an arrest

JUDGEMENT:
• Prisoners should not be deprived of their Fundamental Rights under Article 21
• Guidelines given –
1. The police officer must wear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags
with their designations. The details of all such police personnel who handle
interrogation must be recorded in a register.
2. A memo of arrest must be prepared at the time of arrest and it shall be attested by at
least one (witness family member of the arrestee/ respectable person of the locality
from where the arrest is made).
3. The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified within a
period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.
4. Arrestee must be made aware of his right.
5. Case diary should be maintained at the place of arrest.
6. The arrestee should also be examined at the time of his arrest, and any major and
minor injuries, if present on his/her body, must be documented.
7. Inspection Memo must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer and a
copy must be given to the arrestee.
8. Medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in
custody.
9. Copies of all the documents should be sent to the Magistrate for his record.
10. The arrestee may be allowed to meet his attorney during interrogation.
11. A police control room should be provided at all district and state headquarters, where
information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be
communicated by the officer who was in charge of the arrest, within 12 hours of
effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a visible
notice board.
State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar, (2008) 3SCC 222 33
PROVISIONS:

FACTS:
• Related to the question on the cancellation of candidature after the verification was made
on the basis of criminal records.
• It was asked to what constitutes arrest and custody in relation to a criminal proceeding and
the decision.
• The respondent contended before high court that he was granted bail before getting
arrested by police. That’s why on the basis of this fact, he contended he had never been
actually arrested and case was ended with his acquittal.

JUDGEMENT:
while arresting an accused, the police or other making the same actually touch or confine the body
of the person to be arrested, unless there is a gesture to be under custody by word or action..

if such person resists forcefully in arresting him, or make any effort to evade the arrest, such police
officer or the other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest.

There is nothing in the section gives a right to excuse the death of a person who is not accused of an
punishable with death or with imprisonment of life.
No woman shall be arrested after the sunset and before sunrise, and where exceptional scenario
exit, the woman police officer shall, by making a report and obtaining the prior permission of the
judicial magistrate of the first class within those local jurisdiction of the offence is committed or the
arrest is to be made.

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273

PROVISIONS: 41
The essential ingredient which can be deduced from Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are:
- Woman must be married
- Woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment
- Such cruelty and harassment must have been inflicted either by Husband or relatives of
husband.
FACTS:
• Arnesh Kumar was arrested under the provision of Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.
• Petitioner supported his family member and threatened to marry another woman if the
demand was not fulfilled.
• Petitioner applied for the anticipatory bail which was earlier rejected by Court of Session and
thereafter by the High Court. Aggrieved from the order rejecting the anticipatory bail,
Petitioner by way of Special Leave Petition appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
• Grant of anticipatory bail
1. Right of accused person before and after arrest
2. What are the remedies that is left to a person when there is a misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code by women?
JUDGEMENT:
• Granted provision bail to the petitioner on certain grounds
• Discussed misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
• Gave 8 golden principles/ directions for arresting person under Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code.
Ensure that police officer do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and magistrate do not authorize
detention, the Court giving the following directions:
1. All the State Government should instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest a person
when an offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is registered.
2. All police officers be provided with the check list containing specified clauses under Section
41 (1) (b) (ii).
 3. The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnished with the reason and
material necessitated the arrest while producing accused before the magistrate for further
detention.
4. The magistrate while authorizing the order of further detention shall rely upon the report
furnished by the police officer and only after recording the reason duly furnished on Police
report and on the satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize further detention.
5. The decision not to arrest an accused be forwarded to Magistrate within two weeks from the
date of institution of the case with a copy of Magistrate which may extended by the
Superintendent of police of the district for the reason to be recorded in writing.
6. Notice of Appearance in terms of Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure be served
upon the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of case which may be
extended by the Superintendent of Police after recording the reason in writing.
7. Failure to comply with the directions mentioned above shall rendered the police officer liable
to be punished for contempt of court before High Court having jurisdiction.
8. Authorizing detention by the Judicial Magistrate without recording the reason, the concerned
Judicial Magistrate shall be liable for Departmental Proceedings by the High Court.

UNIT-5
Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012)1 SCC 40 57
PROVISIONS: 437, 439
FACTS:
• Facing trials in respect of offences - cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property,
forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged document
• The Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi had rejected Bail Applications filed by the appellants.
• They moved to High Court of Delhi, but HC also refused to grant bail to the accused-appellants
in this case.
• Moved to Supreme Court
• Both the courts refused the bail on two grounds:
1. The primary offence alleged against the accused persons is very serious involving deep
rooted planning in which huge financial loss is caused to the State Exchequer.
2. The possibility of the accused persons tempering with the witness.

ISSUE:
• Were the appellants entitles to be granted bail in the case

JUDGEMENT:

• It was not in the interest of justice that the accused should be in jail for an indefinite period
during trial.
 1. Sec. 439(1) CrPC confers special powers on the High Court or the Court of Session in
respect of bail.

2. The considerations/factors in granting bail which are common both in the case of
Section 437(1) and sec 439, CrPC are:
a. The nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is
committed
b. The position and status of the accused
c. The likelihood of the accused
i. Of fleeing from justice
ii. Of repeating the offence
iii. Of jeopardizing his own life being faced with grim prospect of
possible convicton in the case
iv. Of tampering with witness

Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565

PROVISIONS: Anticipatory Bail – 437, 438

READ- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] 1 SCC

FACTS: 248

• Mr. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (Minister of Irrigation and Power in Punjab govt.) and a few others
were facing serious accusations of corruption and undue use of power. The minister along
with the other appellants apprehends arrest.
• applied for anticipatory bail
• Application was dismissed by HC but on special leave to appeal, the application was allowed
by the SC.

ISSUES:
• Whether the section 437 & 438 of the CrPC grants bail to a person who has apprehended for
an arrest?
• What is Anticipatory Bail?

JUDGEMENT:
• SC held that granting of anticipatory bail must be a discreationary power to the Higher Courts
when the need arises.
• Dual protection must be provided to the system so that there should not be any kind of misuse
of the power.
• The individual must have reasonable ground to apply for anticipatory bail to apprehend the
arrest. The offence should not be a non- bailable offence.

UNIT-6
Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar, (2011)9 SCC 272
PROVISIONS: 464
FACTS: FARDBEYAN* was submitted
* written document which produce before the court.
• Vikas Kr. Stated that received a call asking about his elder brother (medical shop owner)
• He submitted that he had told the same to the caller. The caller was Mohan Singh,
(appellant), and asked the informant to send him Rs.50,000/-.
• The informant submitted that he had similar conversations with the caller a few times in the
past. However, he then received another call from different no. The caller threatened him
that since the demand of money had not been fulfilled, the informant should be ready to
face the consequences.
• Upon his elder brother's return, the informant had narrated the events to him. However, his
elder brother did not take the threat seriously.
• Elder brother and father were shot (A.K. 47)

JUDGEMENT:

• Appellant convicted under S498A IPC – 3 yrs rigorous imprisonment + 1000/- fine (default) +
3 months/ S201- 1 yr imprisonment + fine 500/- / 2 months imprisonment.

Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, (2012)9 SCALE 542

PROVISIONS: 161, 164
FACTS:

UNIT-7
Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1820 OF 2019.

PROVISION: 228 (Empowers a judge to frame charges against the accused, if considering the
circumstances of the case, he is of the opinion that, sufficient grounds exist for proceeding
against the accused.)
FACTS:
• Respondents- Ghanshyam and Bhagwan were last seen with the deceased Gopal Saran , and
all three of them also consumed liquor.
• Respondents reached their home but there was no information regarding Gopal, later he
was found dead in Ghanshyam’s field.
• Gopal’s wife Bhawna tried to go to deceased body, she was stopped and confined in a room
by Ghanshyam, son Ganesh, it was also shown that the respondents had earlier fight with
the deceased, which showed a probable motive for the crime.

ISSUES:
• What standard of proof is required while framing the charges under section 228 CrPC?
• Whether a detailed reasoning needs to be given while framing the charges under section
228 CrPC?

JUDGEMENT:
• Allegations in the charge sheet show a prima facie case against the respondents.
• State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh – precedent
 • Time of framing the charges, only prima facie case is to be seen.
• The judge is not required to record detailed reasons as to why such charge is framed.

UNIT-8
In Re Goriparthi Krishtamma - 1929 Madras Weekly Notes 881 (read from pdf-material II)
QUESTION? - Whether the conducting of 'case and counter case' by the same Asst. Public
Prosecutor amounts to an illegality, when both cases arise out of police charge sheet?
FACTS:
• The accused was charge sheeted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate for having committed
an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.
• Accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt to PW by beating with a torch on his left leg and
left hand as a result, he sustained serious injuries on his elbow and tibia.
• He failed to present any defense evidence and was acquitted by the learned Magistrate
Court. He preferred this revision petition because he was dissatisfied with that.

Krishna Pannadi vs. Emperor AIR 1930 Madras 190 (read from pdf- material II)
Sudhir vs State (2001)2SCC688 (read from pdf- material II)

UNIT-9
Abdul Karim v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 8 SCC 710

UNIT-11
Ajay Pandit @ Jagdish Dayabhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 43
• Double murder - Nilesh Bhailal Patel and another for the murder of Jayashree
• Death sentence was awarded initially by the trial court.
• Bombay High Court enhanced the sentence of life imprisonment to death and ordered
accused to be hanged till death.
• The court was of the view that taking of evidence as to the circumstances relevant to
sentencing should be encouraged and both the prosecution and the accused should be
allowed to co-operate in the process.
• Object & purpose of hearing – matters to be elicited from the accused.
• Opportunity must be given to produce and lead evidence in court.