Anurag Bhatnagar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 25 Jul 2025

Posted on July 29, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court reiterated the procedure to be followed to report a cognizable crime.

From Paras 26-29,

26. On a conspicuous reading of the provisions of Sections 154, 156 and 190 of the CrPC together, it is crystal clear that an informant who wants to report about a commission of a cognizable offence has to, in the first instance, approach the officer-in-charge of the police station for setting the criminal law into motion by lodging an FIR. However, if such an information is not accepted by the officer-in-charge of the police station and he refuses to record it, the remedy of the informant is to approach the Superintendent of Police concerned. It is only subsequent to availing the above opportunities if he is not successful, he may approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC for necessary action or of taking cognizance in accordance with Section 190 of the CrPC.
27. In the instant case, a bare perusal of the application filed under Section 156(3) of the CrPC dated 01.07.2005 would reveal that the informant therein had simply stated that an offence under Sections 420, 120-B and 34 of the IPC have been committed and that the informant had approached the “police officials” several times but in vain, but the application is completely silent as to when did the informant approach the Police or the Superintendent of Police. The application nowhere states that the informant has ever approached the officer-in-charge of the police station for lodging the FIR in accordance with Section 154 of the CrPC or that on refusal to record such information he has availed the remedy of approaching the Superintendent of Police concerned. The mere bald allegation without any details or proof thereof, that the police authorities were approached several times is not acceptable.
28. In Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P.7 it had been observed that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering the FIR under Section 154 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the person aggrieved to file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate concerned. In other words, the court reiterated that the proper procedure has to be availed of and followed before moving the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC.
29. It is well recognized in law that the person aggrieved must first exhaust the alternative remedies available to him in law before approaching the court of law. In other words, he cannot ordinarily approach the court directly.

Anurag Bhatnagar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 25 Jul 2025

Index of Judgments under Sec 156(3) Cr.P.C. are here.

Sindhu Janak Nagargoje Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors on 08 Aug 2023

Posted on August 14, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on the landmark decision in Lalita Kumari case here, a division bench of Apex Court held that when a complaint disclosed cognizable offence, a FIR has to be registered u/s 154(1) CrPC and proceeded with investigation.

In view of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in the case of “Lalita Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,” reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, we are of the opinion that the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of CrPC, if the information discloses commission of cognizable offence. We may reiterate summary of law stated therein: –
“120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
120.3 If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
120.4 The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
120.5 The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
120.6 As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without
satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
120.7 While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and, in any case, it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
120.8 Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information
relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.”

Sindhu Janak Nagargoje Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors on 08 Aug 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

Smitha Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 27 Jan 2022

Posted on February 21, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Law point held by Kerala High Court is: The principle of locus standi is alien to criminal jurisprudence

From Para 2,

2. Petitioner is the wife of the injured in a road traffic accident. It is alleged that on 16.10.2021, petitioner’s husband Thankachan, a carpenter by avocation, sustained injuries while proceeding to the place of work travelling on the pillion seat of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.KL-32/Q-0114 ridden by the accused, through Elamakkara-Puthukkalavattom Road; in front of Skyline Apartments, due to the rash and negligent riding as to endanger human life, since he had abruptly twisted, the vehicle capsized and her husband fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately rushed to the MAJ Hospital, Edappally. Ext.P1 indicates that Thankachan was taken there at 9.20 am on 16.10.2021 with the alleged history of road traffic accident. Ext.P2 discharge summary indicates that on the same day, he was taken to the Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Lisie hospital where he was admitted with the history of pain and swelling on left ankle following alleged history of road traffic accident. Diagnosis was fracture trimalleolar left ankle for which he underwent surgery on 19.10.2021 and was discharged on 21.10.2021. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite Ext.P1 intimation given by the CMO, MAJ Hospital to the Sub Inspector, Elamakkara Police Station, crime was not registered. It is alleged that on 11.11.2021, petitioner lodged a complaint before the City Police Commissioner, Ernakulam which also was not acted upon and thus, on 19.1.2022, she approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva. It is specifically averred that after sustaining grievous injuries, her husband is in immobile stage and is under complete rest and thus, she approached the court alleging offences under Sections 279, 337
and 338 IPC. But astonishingly enough, the complaint was returned stating that ‘the petition was filed by the wife of the complainant’. The most disturbing aspect is that a note seen put on the last page of the complaint, as follows:-
“19/01/22
Verified within the jurisdiction. Receipt of complaint at Commissioner Office is not seen produced. Hence for orders.
Id/-
Petition filed by wife of the complainant. Hence may be returned, for orders.
Id/-
Returned
sd/-”
It is clear that the signed order was passed by the Magistrate. It is pointed out that the Magistrate has returned the complaint on the premise that it was filed by the wife of the complainant which is illegal.

From Para 4,

4. I have no doubt that the order passed by the Magistrate is illegal and unsustainable. It is the settled proposition of law that criminal law can be set in motion by any person. Here, on the ground that after sustaining grievous hurt, her husband is unable to move out and hence, she has taken initiative to prefer the complaint. The principle of locus standi is alien to criminal jurisprudence.

From Para 5,

5. More disturbing is the Court acting upon office notes put up by the ministerial staff. This Court takes strong exception to such a conduct. In judicial matters, the staff members cannot make any note or suggestion. The learned Magistrate has not applied his mind before returning the complaint. The reason stated is illegal. The order is quashed and the Magistrate is directed to entertain the complaint and pass orders, in accordance with law, within a period of seven days from today.

Smitha Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 27 Jan 2022

Dilranjan Bhatt Vs State of Maharashtra on 20 Sep 2019

Posted on May 11, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on this landmark decision of Apex Court, Bombay High Court held that whatever be the final report of the police after their investigation finishes, has to be passed onto the informant.

Dilranjan Bhatt Vs State of Maharashtra on 20 Sep 2019

Citation :

Other Source :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/106594898/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d953443714d586ef563ac9b/

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Dilranjan-Bhatt-Versus-The-State-of-Maharashtra-2019-09-20

https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=319102340200&Title=DILRANJAN-BHATT-Vs.-STATE-OF-MAHARASHTRA

Bhagwat Singh Vs Commissioner of Police and Anr on 25 Apr 1985

Posted on May 11, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Wonderful judgment clearly states how law takes care of scenarios where the Police do not investigate a complaint/FIR.

Rule-1

If, notwithstanding the First Information Report, the officer-in-charge of a police station decides not to investigate the case on the view that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he is required under sub-section (2) of Section 157 to notify to the informant the fact that he is not going to investigate the case because it to be investigated.

Rule-2

Then again, the officer in charge of a police station is obligated under sub-section(2)(ii) of Section 173 to communicate the action taken by him to the informant and the report forwarded by him to the magistrate under subsection (2)(i) has therefore to be supplied by him to the informant.

Rule-3

Now, when the report forwarded by the officer-in charge of a police station to the Magistrate under sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 comes up for consideration by the Magistrate, one of two different situations may arise. The report may conclude that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person or persons and in such a case, the Magistrate may do one of three things:
(1) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process or
(2) he may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding or
(3) he may direct further investigation under sub-section (3) of Section 156 and require the police to make a further report.

Rule-4

The report may on the other hand state that, in the opinion of the police, no offence apppears to have been committed and where such a report has been made, the Magistrate again has an option to adopt one of three courses:
(1) he may accept the report and drop the proceeding or
(2) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process or
(3) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under sub-section (3) of Section 156.

Opportunity of filing Protest Petition

We are accordingly of the view that in a case where the magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the First Information Report, the magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report.

And finally,

It was urged before us on behalf of the respondents that if in such a case notice is required to be given to the informant, it might result in unnecessary delay on account of the difficulty of effecting service of the notice on the informant. But we do not think this can be regarded as a valid objection against the view we are taking, because in any case the action taken by the police on the First Information Report has to be communicated to the informant and a copy of the report has to be supplied to him under sub-section (2) (i) of Section 173 if that be so, we do not see any reason why it should be difficult to serve notice of the consideration of the report on the informant. Moreover, in any event, the difficulty of service of notice on the informant cannot possibly provide any justification for depriving the informant of the opportunity of being heard at the time when the report is considered by the Magistrate.

Bhagwat Singh Vs Commissioner of Police and Anr on 25 Apr 1985

Citation : [1985 AIR SC 1285], [1985 SCALE 1 1194], [1985 SCC CRI 267], [1985 SCC 2 537], [1985 CRLJ SC 1179], [1985 CRIMES SC 1 994], [1985 SCR 3 942], [1986 ACR SC 10 26], [1986 AWC SC 26], [1985 BOMLR 87 421], [1985 PLJR 53], [1985 SHIMLC 260], [1985 UJ 17 820], [1985 CRI LJ 1521], [1985 UJ SC 820]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118375/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac18e4b014971140e050

Deepak Mahto @ Deepak Kumar Vs State of Bihar on 12 Apr 2021

Posted on April 17, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Patna High Court held that ‘statements under Section 154 Cr.P.C. or under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used for corroboration and contradictions only‘.

From Paras 8 and 9,

8. The aforesaid statement of the prosecutrix does not disclose as to what offence was committed against her.
Evidence given in a Court on oath coupled with opportunity of cross-examination to the accused has great sanctity and that is why the same is called substantive evidence. It is well settled by a catena of judicial pronouncements that statements under Section 154 Cr.P.C. or under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used for corroboration and contradictions only.
9. In R. Shaji v. State of Kerala reported in (2013) 14 SCC 266, the Hon’ble Supreme Court said that a proposition to the effect that if statement of a witness is recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., his evidence in Court should be discarded, is not at all warranted. As the defence had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness whose statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. or under Section 161 Cr.P.C., such statements cannot be treated as substantive evidence.

Deepak Mahto @ Deepak Kumar Vs State of Bihar on 12 Apr 2021

Lingam Seetharammayya and Ors Vs State of AP and Ors on 16 Mar 2021

Posted on April 5, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Single-judge bench of AP HC held that, one cannot directly approach the High Court u/Article 226 of Constitution of India, if the Police do not register an FIR if information about a cognizable offence is reported relying on the case law from AP HC here.

The remedies are under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C.

Lingam Seetharammayya and Ors Vs State of AP and Ors on 16 Mar 2021

Zero FIR Case Laws/ Judgments

Posted on January 10, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a list of judgments from Supreme Court and various High Courts and Legislative/Police Circulars, which talk about a concept called as Zero FIR, meaning register FIR first and then transfer it to appropriate Police Station in which territorial limits the alleged offence occurred. If FIR is not registered, IPC 166A proceedings can be initiated against the Police officers. More actions available here.

Case Laws or Judgments of Courts

Legislative / Police Circulars

Ministry of Home Affairs Dt: 2013-05-10 :
2013-05-10 Registration of FIR irrespective of territorial jurisdiction and Zero FIR
Ministry of Home Affairs Dt: 2015-10-12 :
2015-10-12 Advisory Compulsory Registration FIRs
DGP Office, Karnataka, Dt: 2019-11-26 :
2019-11-26 Registration of FIR (Zero FIR)

Sakiri Vasu Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 7 Dec 2007

Posted on November 5, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Sitting on a Division Bench of Apex Court, Justice Katju held as follows,

From Para 11,

11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.

And then from para 17 and 18,

17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.
18. It is well-settled that when a power is given to an authority to do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without
special mention, every power and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary to its execution.

Then from para 24-28,

24. In view of the above-mentioned legal position, we are of the view that although Section 156(3) is very-briefly worded, there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and /or to direct the officer in charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same. Even though these powers have not been expressly mentioned in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that they are implied in the above provision.
25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3).
26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?
27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation,
and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The
High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.

And finally from para 30 and 31,

30. It may be further mentioned that in view of Section 36 Cr.P.C. if a person is aggrieved that a proper investigation has not been made by the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station, such aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police or other police officer superior in rank to the officer-in-charge of the police station and such superior officer can, if he so wishes, do the investigation vide CBI vs. State of Rajasthan and another 2001 (3) SCC 333 (vide para 11), R.P. Kapur vs. S.P. Singh AIR 1961 SC 1117 etc. Also, the State Government is competent to direct the Inspector General, Vigilance to take over the investigation of a cognizable offence registered at a police station vide State of Bihar vs. A.C. Saldanna (supra).
31. No doubt the Magistrate cannot order investigation by the CBI vide CBI vs. State of Rajasthan and another (Supra), but this Court or the High Court has power under Article 136 or Article 226 to order investigation by the CBI. That, however should be done only in some rare and exceptional case, otherwise, the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and would find it impossible to properly investigate all of them.

Sakiri Vasu Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 7 Dec 2007

Citations : [2007 AIOL 1247], [2007 JT 13 466], [2008 SCC 2 409], [2008 AIR SC 309], [2007 CRIMES SC 4 338], [2008 SUPREME 8 226], [2007 SCR 12 1100], [2008 SCC CRI 1 440], [2007 SCALE 13 693], [2008 AIR SC 907], [2008 AIC SC 62 236], [2008 KERLT 1 724], [2008 AIR SCW 309], [2008 GUJ LR 2 1666]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1836621/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae45e4b01497114135cc

Priyanka Srivastava and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 19 March, 2015

Posted on December 18, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Dipak Misra states that Magistrate has to be alive about the allegation brought to him via Non-cognizable case by Police.

From Paras 26 and 27,

26. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.
27. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an the application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.

From Para 30,

30. In the present case, we are obligated to say that learned Magistrate should have kept himself alive to the aforesaid provision before venturing into directing registration of the FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is because the Parliament in its wisdom has made such a provision to protect the secured creditors or any of its officers, and needles to emphasize, the legislative mandate, has to be kept in mind.

Priyanka Srivastava and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 19 March, 2015

Citations: [AIR 2015 SC 1758], [2015 (3) RLW 2404 (SC)], [2015(3) PLJR 78(SC)], [2015 SCL SC 130 472], [2015 AIOL 3152], [2015 CRIMES SC 2 179], [2015 CRIMES SC 2 209], [2015 CRLJ SC 2396], [2015 JCC SC 2 974], [2015 JT 5 203], [2015 SCALE 4 120], [2015 SCC 6 287], [2015 SLT 3 431], [2015 SUPREME 3 152], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 272], [2015 CTC 3 103], [2015 KLJ 2 491], [2015 KERLT 2 451], [2015 SCC CRI 4 153], [2015 SCC CIV 3 294]

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163299097/

Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b242e561097e45a4e25a

The Index for Defamation Judgments is here. Index of Judgments under Sec 156(3) Cr.P.C. are here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: CrPC 154 – Information in Cognizable Cases

Anurag Bhatnagar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 25 Jul 2025

Sindhu Janak Nagargoje Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors on 08 Aug 2023

Smitha Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 27 Jan 2022

Dilranjan Bhatt Vs State of Maharashtra on 20 Sep 2019

Bhagwat Singh Vs Commissioner of Police and Anr on 25 Apr 1985

Deepak Mahto @ Deepak Kumar Vs State of Bihar on 12 Apr 2021

Lingam Seetharammayya and Ors Vs State of AP and Ors on 16 Mar 2021

Zero FIR Case Laws/ Judgments

Sakiri Vasu Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 7 Dec 2007

Priyanka Srivastava and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 19 March, 2015