Relying on landmark decision of a Division bench of the Apex Court here, High Court of Chhattisgarh held that the accused must be provided with a certified copy of the FIR in which the accused was accused.
Titash Banik Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 23 Dec 2016Citations: [2016 SCC ONLINE CHH 1623]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149118573/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58a563b84a93266eac2e0258
Police authorities cannot deny certified copy of FIR, except in some sensitive cases
From Para 14,
14. On a careful reading of the aforesaid provision, it is quite vivid that the Court of Session can take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original
jurisdiction except as otherwise expressly provided by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force only if the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate.
From Para 28,
28.From the aforesaid pronouncement of law rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Special Judge is not prohibited from exercising power and jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of the Code when there is no exclusion of power in respect of the point raised.
hence, from Paras 32 and 33,
32.Thus, from the aforesaid proposition of law rendered by the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay (supra) and the M.P. High Court in Anand Swaroop Tiwari (supra), it is quite vivid that the Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the Act of 1989 is the criminal court of original jurisdiction and is not governed by Section 193 of the Code, and the Special Court can take cognizance in any of the circumstances referred to in Section 190 of the Code and is governed by Chapters XV & XVI of the Code and such other provisions of the Code which are not inconsistent with the status and functions as Courts of original jurisdiction. Therefore, the Special Courts constituted under the Act of 1989 will also have power and jurisdiction to invoke Section 156(3) of the Code to direct investigation in exercise of power conferred, to the Station House Officer subject to fulfillment of making two prior applications under Section 154(1) and thereafter under Section 154(3) of the Code by the complainant. As such, I do not find any merit in the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the Special Judge under SC & ST Act has no power and jurisdiction to invoke Section 156(3) of the Code and to direct registration of FIR and investigation. Such a submission being meritless and substance-less deserves to be and is accordingly rejected.
33. Having answered question No.1 against the petitioners and in favour of respondent No.2, reverting to the second question whether the learned Special Judge is justified in invoking power and jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of the Code after finding compliance with the provisions contained in subsections (1) & (3) of Section 154 of the Code, it would be necessary to point out here that in order to make a duly constituted application for invoking the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge under Section 156(3) of the Code, compliance of subsections (1) & (3) of Section 154 of the Code would be absolutely necessary rather it would be sine-qua-non for making the application under Section 156(1) of the Code maintainable.
From Paras 35 and 36,
35.From the focused perusal of Section 154(1) of the Code, it is quite vivid that every information relating to commission of cognizable offence, if given orally to in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant and every such information given in writing or reduced in writing as above-said shall be signed by person giving it and substance thereof shall be entered into book kept by such officer. Subsection (3) of Section 154 of the Code provides the procedure to be followed by informant, if officer in charge of a police station refuses to record the information referred to Section 154(1) of the Code and mandates that substance of such information in writing may be sent by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned, who if satisfied that such information discloses commission of cognizable offence either investigate himself or direct an officer subordinate to him to investigate in the manner provided by the Code.
36.Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Priyanka Srivastava (supra) laid down duty and approach of Magistrate while exercising power under Section 156(3) of the Code and highlighted preconditions to be satisfied to maintain the application under Section 156(3). It has also been held that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind and there has to be prior application under Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the Code.
Jaisingh Agarwal and Anr Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr on 27 Oct 2020
Whether an Advocate, while acting under the instructions of his client and proceeding professionally, can be prosecuted / punished for the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is the precise question involved in this petition which came before High Court of Chhattisgarh.
From Para 10,
10. It appears from the aforesaid genealogical tree that respondent No.2 herein has been shown to be the concubine / wife of Ghanshyam Pandey. This, according to respondent No.2, is defamatory, as she is the legally married wife of Ghanshyam Pandey after the death of his first wife Smt. Tarini Pandey and that led to the present dispute.
From Para 24,
24. In light of above-stated legal analysis, an advocate, who acted professionally as per instructions of his/her client, cannot be made criminally liable for the offence of defamation under Section 500 of the IPC unless contrary is alleged and established.
From Para 26,
….
As such, an Advocate who has acted professionally and drafted plaint making averment as per the instructions of his client, cannot be held liable for the offence of defamation under Section 500 of the IPC.
Finally from Para 33,
Arun Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 10 July 201933. Admittedly, respondent No.2 claims that the alleged incident happened in the year 2014 and after lapse of 3-4 years, FIR has been lodged which clearly goes to show that there was no intention of the petitioner to cause harm, as in such a case, she would have rushed to the police authority well in time. As such, even it cannot be held that the petitioner has abused and insulted respondent No.2 in terms of Section 506 of the IPC.
Relatives not living in a shared household were implicated in a false DV case, so High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed the DV proceedings against the petitioners.
Nafisa Anjum Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 26 Sep 2018Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/100106255/
https://www.lawyerservices.in/Nafisa-Anjum-Versus-State-of-Chhattisgarh-Through-Officer-In-Charge-Police-Station-2018-09-26
http://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=028102399000
The fundamental question High Court answered in this Order is this,
Subha Jakkanwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 26 November, 2019“Whether an Advocate acting professionally and in discharge of his / her professional duty renders an opinion by giving non-encumbrance certificate to bank for granting loan to a borrower certifying that he has legal and marketable title over the land in question free from all encumbrances and subsequently, the same is found to be non-acceptable / untrue, can be prosecuted / criminally liable for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of the IPC for non-exhibiting greater professional care and competence?“
Citations:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
In this judgment of Chhattisgarh High court, IPC 498A was held to be a continuing offence as the allegations of mental cruelty happened over a telephone call, at a place which actually does not have jurisdiction. Funny.
Anyways this was turned around by hon’ble Supreme Court in 2014. Go here to read judgment.
Amrendu Jyoti And Ors. vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. on 19 December, 2006In this FA appeal judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, it has granted divorce decree based on the ground of severe metal cruelty to husband and quashed the lump-sum alimony of INR 5,00,000 to the knife, as it was not prayed for in the petition. Maintenance to daughter is held as is.
Shruti Deshpande Vs Shriram Deshpande on 6 March, 2014
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Peculiar case here. A writ petition is filed seeking to challenge the transfer of a zero FIR registered from a PS in Chhattisgarh to a PS in Telangana.
Case Brief:
Argument made is that the Officer In-charge of the police station was obliged to investigate the offence completely and without completion of the investigation, it was not within the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Police, to transfer the F.I.R./case diary to the Police Station Alwal, District Secunderabad (Telangana) for further investigation and therefore, the order of transfer of F.I.R./case diary to the Police Station Alwal, District Secunderabad (Telangana) is unsustainable in law and therefore, order dated 09/07/2015 passed by Superintendent of Police be set-aside and Station House Officer, Police Station Tarbahar Bilaspur be directed to investigate the offence completely and respondent No. 2 be directed to send back the case diary back to Police Station Tarbahar Bilaspur for investigation of the matter.
Finally,
Aaisha Uttarwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 29 April, 2016As the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC being cognizable, the Station House Officer, Tarbahar Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) was obliged to investigate the said offence completely by virtue of provisions contained in Section 156(1) of the Cr.P.C., and unless, the investigation of said crime is completed fully as per procedure laid down in Cr.P.C., F.I.R. could not have been directed to be transferred and such a direction is contrary to law laid down by Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Satvinder Kaur (supra).
