MS Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra on 26 Jul 2021

Posted on March 21, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Division bench of the Apex Court held that, there is no scope for examining the complainant (or any witnesses) u/s 200 CrPC, in a 156(3) CrPC proceeding, since that stage is pre-cognizance of any cognizable offence.

From Paras 16 and 17,

16 The primary basis on which the High Court has allowed the applications under Section 438 is that the complaint filed by the first informant was supported by an affidavit dated 6 February 2016. However, the High Court held that the mandate of Section 200 of the CrPC of examining the complainant on oath has not been fulfilled by the Magistrate. On this basis, the High Court held that this raises a serious doubt about the validity of the order which has been passed under Section 156(3).
17 There is a serious error in the view of the Single Judge. First and foremost, the Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) was not under challenge before the High Court and has attained finality. The High Court was in error in raising a doubt about the correctness of the order under section 156(3) passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 11 May 2016 in the course of considering the complaint filed by the complainant. Secondly, the position in law as set out in the order of the Single Judge does not accord with the principles which have been consistently enunciated in the decisions of this Court specifically in the context of Chapter XV of the CrPC. Sections 200 and 202

From Para 20,

20 In Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh6, Justice Swatanter Kumar for the Bench noted that Section 156 primarily deals with the powers of the police officer to investigate cognizable cases. While passing an order under Section 156(3), the Magistrate does not take cognizance. The order of the Magistrate is in the nature of ―a pre-emptory reminder or intimation to the police‖ to exercise their primary duty and power of investigation. The court held that the power of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) is not affected by the provisions of Section 202

MS Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra on 26 Jul 2021

Citations : [AIR 2021 SC 3580], [2021 All.M.R. (Cri.) 3062], [2021 (5) BLJ 114], [2021 CriLJ 3747], [JT 2021 (7) SC 238], [2021 (3) MLJ (Cri) 438], [2021 (3) RCR (Criminal) 691], [2021 (8) SCALE 534], [(2021) 8 SCC 753]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77704402/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6101a65137988476911e2ec4

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/m-s-supreme-bhiwandi-wada-manor-infrastructure-pvt-ltd-versus-the-state-of-maharashtra-anr

Busarapu Satya Yesu Babu Vs State of AP and Sake Roja on 05 Nov 2021

Posted on December 1, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A single-judge bench of AP High Court held as follows,

From Para 6, Ground-1

6. On the other hand, respondent No.2 submits that petitioner cannot raise a contention that 16 other complaints were lodged by respondent No.2 that she is habituated in lodging complaints against public servants and others, as it is her personal issue and there is no illegality in the order under revision. She submits that while exercising power under Section 156(3) Courts can forward complaint to Police without issuing notice to the accused. Hence, there is no illegality in the order impugned and this revision is liable to be dismissed. Relied on Priyanka Srivastava and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

7. In the case on hand, the Magistrate has only directed the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C for investigation and directed the police to file report by17.06.2021. The Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently held that when the Magistrate applies his mind and order for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C, he could not be said to have taken cognizance of offence and by doing so, it will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was the primary duty of the police to investigate. In this case, the Magistrate has not taken cognizance, but only referred the matter to the police for investigation. At this juncture, as argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that sanction should have been obtained as the petitioner is a public servant has no legs to stand.

From Para 8, Ground-2

8. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C and directed to submit a report which is an interlocutory order and revision against such an order under Section 397 (2) of Cr.P.C is barred under law. However, after completion of investigation, if Police come to the conclusion that complaint is filed with false allegations, they can as well close the case by referring it as false. The revision is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of its maintainability as it isnot final order and it falls under interlocutory order, which cannot be challenged.

Busarapu Satya Yesu Babu Vs State of AP and Sake Roja on 05 Nov 2021

Ghulam Hassan Sofi and Anr Vs State of JK on 02 Apr 2021

Posted on July 15, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on the landmark judgment of SCI here, single judge of Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the trial court can direct further investigation suo moto even after hearing the petitioner on the point of charging/discharge (under 239/240 CrPC)

Ghulam Hassan Sofi and Anr Vs State of JK on 02 Apr 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154829698/

https://primelegal.in/2021/04/05/court-can-order-further-investigation-while-exercising-its-discretion-u-s-156-cr-p-c-high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir/

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors Vs State of Gujarat and Anr on 16 Oct 2019

Posted on June 28, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A landmark judgment by a Full Bench of Supreme Court of India around the question,

From Para 9,

whether, after a charge-sheet is filed by the police, the Magistrate has the power to order further investigation, and if so, up to what stage of a criminal proceeding.

From Para 25,

25. Whereas it is true that Section 156(3) remains unchanged even after the 1973 Code has been brought into force, yet the 1973 Code has one very important addition, namely, Section 173(8), which did not exist under the 1898 Code. As we have noticed earlier in this judgment, Section 2(h) of the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code defines “investigation” in the same terms as the earlier definition contained in Section 2(l) of the 1898 Criminal Procedure Code with this difference – that “investigation” after the 1973 Code has come into force will now include all the proceedings under the CrPC for collection of evidence conducted by a police officer. “All” would clearly include proceedings under Section 173(8) as well. Thus, when Section 156(3) states that a Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order “such an investigation”, such Magistrate may also order further investigation under Section 173(8), regard being had to the definition of “investigation” contained in Section 2(h).

From Para 36,

36. Despite the aforesaid judgments, some discordant notes were sounded in three recent judgments. In Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibai Patel (2017) 4 SCC 177, on the facts in that case, the Appellant/Informant therein sought a direction under Section 173(8) from the Trial Court for further investigation by the police long after charges were framed against the Respondents at the culminating stages of the trial. The Court in its ultimate conclusion was correct, in that, once the trial begins with the framing of charges, the stage of investigation or inquiry into the offence is over, as a result of which no further investigation into the offence should be ordered. But instead of resting its judgment on this simple fact, this Court from paragraphs 29 to 34 resuscitated some of the earlier judgments of this Court, in which a view was taken that no further investigation could be ordered by the Magistrate in cases where, after cognizance is taken, the accused had appeared in pursuance of process being issued. In particular, Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy (supra) was strongly relied upon by the Court. We have already seen how this judgment was rendered without adverting to the definition of “investigation” in Section 2(h) of the CrPC, and cannot therefore be relied upon as laying down the law on this aspect correctly.

From Para 38,

38. There is no good reason given by the Court in these decisions as to why a Magistrate’s powers to order further investigation would suddenly cease upon process being issued, and an accused appearing before the Magistrate, while concomitantly, the power of the police to further investigate the offence continues right till the stage the trial commences. Such a view would not accord with the earlier judgments of this Court, in particular, Sakiri (supra), Samaj Parivartan Samudaya (supra), Vinay Tyagi (supra), and Hardeep Singh (supra); Hardeep Singh (supra) having clearly held that a criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. What is not given any importance at all in the recent judgments of this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that the Article demands no less than a fair and just investigation. To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate’s nod under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases mid-way through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h), and Section 173(8) of the CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law. If, for example, fresh facts come to light which would lead to inculpating or exculpating certain persons, arriving at the truth and doing substantial justice in a criminal case are more important than avoiding further delay being caused in concluding the criminal proceeding, as was held in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi (supra). Therefore, to the extent that the judgments in Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel (supra), Athul Rao (supra) and Bikash Ranjan Rout (supra) have held to the contrary, they stand overruled. Needless to add, Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361 and Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 129 also stand overruled.

From Para 43,

43. We, therefore, set aside the impugned High Court judgment insofar as it states that post-cognizance the Magistrate is denuded of power to order further investigation.

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors Vs State of Gujarat and Anr on 16 Oct 2019

Citations : [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 1346], [(2019) 17 SCC 1], [AIR 2019 SC 5233], [2020(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1], [(2019) 14 SCALE 1]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/131202146/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5da99d013321bc410549721e

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/vinubhai-haribhai-malaviya-and-ors-versus-the-state-of-gujarat-and-anr

Kishanvihari Sharma Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors

Posted on June 28, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Two vital and interesting legal questions of interpretation have reached a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High court.

On 09 Jun 2021,

The Court framed the questions that need determination

(1) As to whether the provision of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be invoked by accused alleging improper/delayed investigation or not ?
(2) As to whether the provision of Section 161 Cr.P.C. providing for examination of witnesses by the police can include examination of accused also or not, only for the purpose of ascertaining the truth and not for recording confession ?

Kishanvihari Sharma Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors on 09 Jun 2021

On 24 Jun 2021,

Noting from the submissions of the rival counsels, the Bench held that there are conflicting decision from the Supreme Court on the legal points for determination and so opened up the questions to the entire Bar and sought assistance from the Bar Association.

Kishanvihari Sharma Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors on 24 Jun 2021

On first week of Aug 2021,

Adv Mehmood Pracha Office searched

Posted on January 15, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Interesting aspects learnt (for a newbie like me)!!!

Adv Mehmood Pracha Office searched_compressed

Jaisingh Agarwal and Anr Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr on 27 Oct 2020

Posted on January 13, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

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

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

MS Sujan Multiports Ltd Vs State of Haryana and Ors on 12 March 2019

Posted on August 24, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the wonderful judgment from Punjab and Haryana High Court. Very good for lawyers and law students alike.

This is what is mentioned by Hon’ble Judge on first page itself. This is just beginning.

The language of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though is as simple as it could have been, yet seems to have fallen pray to the fear of ‘unknown’ in its applied interpretations. That ‘unknown’ is the fear arising out of a demon of the Indian system of administration of criminal justice, called the ‘FIR’. This fear is so pervasive that it starts showing its effect even before the ‘FIR’ comes into being, and continues to haunt a person even after he is acquitted of the charge leveled in ‘FIR’.

Entire Complaint filing and cognizance taking upon such complaint is detailed elaborately further.

MS Sujan Multiports Ltd Vs State of Haryana and Ors on 12 March 2019

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 156(3) – Any Magistrate Empowered u/s 190 May Order Such an Investigation as above-mentioned

MS Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra on 26 Jul 2021

Busarapu Satya Yesu Babu Vs State of AP and Sake Roja on 05 Nov 2021

Ghulam Hassan Sofi and Anr Vs State of JK on 02 Apr 2021

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors Vs State of Gujarat and Anr on 16 Oct 2019

Kishanvihari Sharma Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors

Adv Mehmood Pracha Office searched

Jaisingh Agarwal and Anr Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr on 27 Oct 2020

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

MS Sujan Multiports Ltd Vs State of Haryana and Ors on 12 March 2019

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