web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Namathoti Sankaramma Vs State of A.P. and Ors on 15 Sep 2000

Posted on January 1 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a case decided by single-judge bench of AP High Court regard a case involving CrPC 210.

From Paras 13, 14 and 15,

13. Sub-section (1) of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. is designed to ensure that the enquiry or trial in the case instituted on the basis of a complaint and enquiry or trial on the basis of a police report in respect of the same incident do not proceed tangentially but proceed in tandem. To enable the Magistrate to monitor the enquiry or trial under these two different streams to ensure simultaneously such enquiry or trial, Sub-section (1) of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. provides that when the case is instituted on the basis of a complaint, if it is brought to the notice of the Magistrate during the course of enquiry or trial on the basis of the said complaint that the investigation by the police in relation to the same offence is under way, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such enquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting investigation. The condition for applicability of Section 210(1) of Cr.P.C. is that there must be commonality of the ‘offence’ in the subject of investigation by the police and the subject of enquiry by the Magistrate in the complaint case. But considering the context and the object of the provision, the word ‘offence’ used in Sub-section (1) of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. cannot be construed to refer to a particular provision of law defining certain offence. But it must be deemed to denote the incident or transaction in which an offence or offences have been committed.

14. However, under Sub-section (2) of Section 210 of Cr.P.C., the word ‘offence’ appears to have been used to indicate a particular transgression labelled as a particular offence under IPC or any other law. It is obvious from the fact that normally when the Court takes cognizance of an offence, it does not refer to taking cognizance of the whole incident in which offences are committed but to particular violations, which have been defined as specific offences. Inasmuch as the object of the provision appears to be as stated above to avoid enquiries or trials sought to be initiated on two different footings, namely, the complaint and the police report on parallel tracks leading to conflicting results, obviously it is the commonality of the
incident which are the subject matters of the complaint and the first information report under investigation by the police and not the labels of a particular transgression of law affixed by the complainant in the complaint or in the first information report which, if it were not so, the provisions of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. can be evaded by a mere device of labelling the transaction with different offences. As stated above in this case, the stage of staying the proceedings in the complaint case under Sub-section (1) of Section 210 of Cr.P.C., has passed and the stage for calling for a report from the police has also been passed inasmuch as the police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. has been filed already. The provision in Sub-section (1) of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. has been made as stated above for preventing parallel enquiries or trials. Where a question as to application of the provisions under Section 210 of Cr.P.C. arises at certain stage of enquiry in the complaint case or after the report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the police, it cannot be said that because the stage for invoking Sub-section (1) of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. has crossed, the other provisions under it are not applicable.

15. For application of Sub-section (2) of Section 210 of Cr.P.C., two conditions are required to be satisfied, (i) On the report of the police under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., cognizance of some offences has been taken by the Magistrate; and (ii) Any person who is an accused in the complaint case is among the accused against whom the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence on the basis of the police report.

From Paras 21 and 22,

21. Section 210(3) Cr.P.C., would apply in two situations (i) Where the police report does not relate to ‘any’ accused in the complaint case, and (ii) if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report at all. The word ‘any’ with reference to the accused and the offence in Section 210(3) and for that matter in Sub-section (2) of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. would only mean ‘one or more’ and not ‘all’. The Judgment of the Orissa High Court supra proceeds on the basis that Section 210(3) of Cr.P.C., will be applicable where all the offences and all the accused are not common in both the cases.
22. In this case as seen above, in view of the application of the provision of Section 210(2) Cr.P.C., an enquiry on the basis of a police report and the complaint case for the purpose of committal proceedings was required to be conducted together as if both were instituted on a police report.

Finally, from Para 25,

25. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have examined the committal order to ensure whether the requirements under Sub-section (2) of Section 210 Cr.P.C. have been complied with or not. It was necessary for him to ascertain whether the learned Magistrate while enquiring into the matter has treated the material available in the com- plaint case as if it was material brought forth on record in the police report case. This was not done. I am, therefore, satisfied that there was no substantial compliance of Section 210(2) Cr.P.C. For the purpose of committing the case not only the material available in the police report has to be considered, but the material available in the complaint case also requires to be considered as it if it is material placed before the Court in the police report case.

Namathoti Sankaramma Vs State of A.P. and Ors on 15 Sep 2000

Casemine version:

Namathoti Sankaramma Vs State of A.P. and Ors on 15 Sep 2000 Casemine

Citations : [2000 ALD CRI 2 588], [2001 RCR CRIMINAL 2 323], [2000 SCC ONLINE AP 772], [2001 ALT CRI 1 17], [2000 SUP CRLJ AP 4831]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/678335/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f7c8e4b0149711140c35

Shades of Knife


Disclaimer:

Curated, Reproduced from main.sci.gov.in, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in or any other Government websites such as Gazettes and repositories of Government Orders and Commented in accordance with Section 52(1)(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) and any other applicable public disclosure laws/provisions in India and in various other countries.

I neither have control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in entire form, nor I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.

Read more gyan here.

Though, I can remove content from my site, on request for any parties to a case, even though, I am not legally obligated to do so, except for express bar from a Competent Court.

Om Shanthi !!!


Oh, by the way, my competent Legal team delivers time-bound legal reliefs to victims of false family and matrimonial cases at

AnaghaLegalReliefs.in !!! (work-in-progress)

We are on social media too.
Just google for: Anagha Legal Reliefs

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments CrPC 210 - Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence Legal Procedure Explained Namathoti Sankaramma Vs State of A.P. and Ors Reportable Judgement | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 3 Apr 2019 March 9, 2021
  • U.Surekha Vs State of AP on 04 Mar 2021 March 6, 2021
  • CrPC 406 – Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals March 5, 2021
  • CrPC 358 – Compensation to persons groundlessly arrested March 5, 2021
  • CrPC 250 – Compensation for accusation without reasonable cause March 5, 2021

Most Read Posts

  • Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020 (610 views)
  • Rani Narasimha Sastry Vs Rani Suneela Rani on 05 Jan 2017 (419 views)
  • Government Guesthouse at Kapuluppada, Visakhapatnam (335 views)
  • Dr Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs State of AP and Ors (308 views)
  • Kapil Gupta Vs State on 23 Sep 2020 (280 views)
  • In Re To issues certain guidelines regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials (265 views)
  • Prof. S. K. Bhalla Vs State of JnK and Ors on 09 Oct 2020 (262 views)
  • Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr on 04 Nov 2020 (251 views)
  • CrPC 309 - Power to Postpone or Adjourn Proceedings (246 views)
  • IPC 498A is a Compoundable Case in Andhra Pradesh (237 views)

Tags

Landmark Case (219)Legal Procedure Explained (218)Work-In-Progress Article (190)Reportable Judgement (171)Catena of Landmark Judgments (129)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (108)Sandeep Pamarati (81)Article 21 of The Constitution of India (62)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (47)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (46)Summary Post (46)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (44)3-Judge Bench Decision (39)1-Judge Bench Decision (37)IPC 498a Not Made Out (32)CrPC 482 - Quash (32)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (32)PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted (31)PIL - CrPC 125 Must Go From Statute Book (28)LLB Subjects and Previous Year Exam Papers and Answers (27)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (501)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (253)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (132)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (82)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (77)General Study Material (53)Prakasam DV Cases (46)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (45)LLB Study Material (45)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (40)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (37)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (35)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (33)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (27)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (27)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (21)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (13)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (11)Chittor DV Cases (11)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • muralidhar Rao Sirangi on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • ShadesOfKnife on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • anuj on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • March 2021 (7)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (29)
  • August 2020 (42)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (36)
  • December 2019 (35)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (58)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (19)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (74)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (102)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Cloudflare Billing Issues March 6, 2021
    Mar 6, 17:52 UTCResolved - The Billing issue was identified and has been resolved.Mar 6, 17:16 UTCIdentified - The Billing issue has been identified and resolution is in progress.Mar 6, 16:09 UTCInvestigating - Cloudflare is experiencing problems in processing changes through our billing subscription service with credit-card or paypal. Purchasing might be affected with these […]
  • Wrong WAF nomenclature March 5, 2021
    Mar 5, 23:32 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Mar 5, 23:02 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.Mar 5, 19:19 UTCIdentified - WAF actions will appear incorrectly as 'Unknown' for some events.No customer traffic is affected and the WAF is still functioning properly.
  • Elevated number of 403/1000 errors March 5, 2021
    Mar 5, 17:17 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Mar 5, 16:32 UTCIdentified - Cloudflare is investigating an increased level of HTTP 403 /1000 errors for customers using the Orange to Orange feature.We are working to analyse and mitigate this problem. More updates to follow shortly.

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 103.7.155.8 | SD March 7, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 2,737 | First: 2021-02-14 | Last: 2021-03-07
  • 103.50.85.131 | SD March 7, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 1,508 | First: 2017-12-19 | Last: 2021-03-07
  • 103.7.155.6 | SD March 7, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 2,785 | First: 2021-02-14 | Last: 2021-03-07
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC
pixel