CrPC Judgments

Serial Case Title Held
No.
The State of Bihar Section 2(d) Charge sheet by RPF
1. V. officer

2. Chandra Bhushan for offence under Railway Property
3. Singh & Ors. Act can be treated as complaint of
4.
AIR 2001 Supreme Court 429 the RPF.
5. Attiq-Ur-Rehman Section 4 In absence of special court
V. the regular court can try the offence.
6.
7. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Section 4 The words Punishment and
8. Another AIR 1996 SC 1267 Penalty is explained.
9. Thomas Dana
10. V. Section 4 Union Govt. was directed
The State of Punjab to constitute special court.
AIR 1959 SC 375
Section 4(2) When the special
Republic of Italy thr. Ambassador statute does not prescribe procedure
& Ors.
V. Cr.P.C. is applicable.

Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Section 9 Additional Sessions Judge
2013(1) SCALE 462 can hear appeal.

Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel Section 9(3) 194 and 409 Assistant
V. and Additional Sessions Judges
exercise jurisdiction of Sessions
The State of
Court but they are separate Courts.
Gujarat and Anr. AIR 2001 SC 567 Section 28 Assistant Sessions Judge
Re. Sikandar khan Mahomed khan
should not be allotted with case
1920 (22) BOM LR 200 punishable with more than 10 years.
Emperor
V. Section 29 and Section 138 NI Act
Magistrate has no pecuniary limit for
Lakshman Chavji Narangikar
AIR 1931 Bom 313 compensation.
Praphakar
V. Section 29 Magistrate has no
pecuniary limit for compensation.
The State of Maharashtra
2012 Cri.L.J. 4726

Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel
V.

The State Of Gujarat
AIR 2001 SC 567

Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel
V.

The State Of Gujarat
AIR 2001 SC 567

11. Shidlingappa Gurulingappa Section 31 Aggregate fine should be

V. considered for the purpose of appeal.

Emperor AIR 1926 Bom 416

12. Chatar Singh Section 31 Aggregate sentence not

V. to exceed 14 years when consecutive

State Of M.P. AIR 2007 SC 319 SC says.

13. Hariom @ Kalicharan Shiriram and Section 31 and 427(1) Accused

anr. convicted in 3 cases His sentence of

V. 22 years brought down by giving

The State of Maharashtra concurrence in two cases.

1994(2) Bom C.R.219

14. Emperor Section 31 and IPC Section 71

V. separate sentences are subject to

Piru Rama Havaldar the provisions of Section 71,

27 BOM LR 1371 Indian Penal Code.

15. Jagat Bahadur Singh Jagat Bahadur Section 31 Appellate court can inflict

Singh the Trial Court's limited punishment

V. only.

State of Madhya Pradesh

AIR 1966 SC 945

16. Reg. Section 31 For Section 457 and 380

V. IPC Sentence may be either for both

Tukaya Bin Tamana or for one but should not greater.

ILR 1875 1 Bom 214

17. Sunil Anandrao Sawant Section 31 Separate sentence to run

V. consecutive after life has been

Government Of Maharashtra 2010 discussed.

Cri.L.J. 3579

18. Nanak Chand Section 34 and 149 Distinction is
V. Explained.

The State of Punjab
AIR 1955 SC 274

19. D.K. Basu Section 41 and Constitution

V. Article 21

State of West Bengal Directions with respect to arrest and

AIR 1997 SC 610 detention.

20. R.P. Vaghela Section 41 and Contempt of Courts

V. Act Section 10 Mere handcuffing

State of Gujarat without prior permission, in

2002 Cri.L.J. 3082 justifiable circumstances does not

amount to contempt.

Cr.P.C. Case Laws - By Adv. Abhishek Gupta
Important judgments of (Delhi High Court)
Criminal Procedure Code
Mobile: 9999052336/ 8700521407

21. Afak Shabbir Khan Section 41 Mentioning reasons in the

V. arrest panchanama is held sufficient

The State Of Maharashtra & Anr compliance of

2013 Bom CR(Cri) 242(DB) recording reasons for arrest.

22. Arnesh Kumar Section 41(1) and 41A and Section

V. 498-A of IPC

State of Bihar Directions to police and Magistrates.

AIR 2014 SC 2756

23. Manikandan Section 41(1)(d) Accused needs to

V. bailed or not is discussed.

S. I. of Police, Nallalam Police Stn

2008 Cri.L.J. 1338

24. Joginder Kumar Section 56(1) Magistrate to ensure

V. compliance of directions given.

State of U.P. and Ors.

(1994) 4 SCC 260

25. Jayendragiri Anandgiri Goswami Section 57 Accused in NCB custody

V. arrested in another crime should be

Narcotics Control Bureau and Anr. produced before magistrate within 24

2005 Cri.L.J. 3190 hours.

26. Gajanan P. Lasure Section 57 and deemed suspension

V. of accused public servant.

The Director General of Police & ors.

2009(4) Mh.L.J.399

27. Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin Section 70 and 71 No Arrest on

V. cancelled warrant. Warrant register

State of Maharashtra and Anr AIR be maintained.

2011 SC 3393

28. State Through CBI Section 73 Warrant can be issued

V. before charge sheet and for

Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar investigation purpose.

AIR 1997 SC 2494

29. Shaikh Raheman Section 79 Magistrate can issue

V. warrant for execution beyond his

State of Maharashtra local jurisdiction.

1991(1) Bom.CR. 263

30. M.P. Sharma and Ors. Section 93 and 94 Search and

V. Seizure from accused not violative of

Satish Chandra AIR 1954 SC 300 fundamental rights.

31. State of Gujarat Section 94 is not applicable to

V. accused.

Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi

MANU-SC-0383-1964

N A T R A J L E G A L S O L U T I O N S Page 4

Cr.P.C. Case Laws - By Adv. Abhishek Gupta
Important judgments of (Delhi High Court)
Criminal Procedure Code
Mobile: 9999052336/ 8700521407

32. State of Gujarat Section 94(1) Power to issue

V. summons to produce document is

Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi not applicable to accused.

AIR 1965 SC 1251

33. Pravin Singh and another Section 97 Search can be conducted

V. in a place other than mentioned in

Biharilal Singh and another warrant.

1989 Cri.L.J. (1386) (Bom)

34. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Section 100 and Section 27 Evidence

V. Act Witnesses not required.

Sunil and Another

2001 Cri.L.J. 504

35. Khet Singh Section 100 Seizure panchanama
V. prepared at customs office instead of

Union of India (UOI) spot did not cause prejudice Hence

AIR 2002 SC 1450 relied.

36. State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Section 100 Whether immovable
V. property is included or not referred

Sudhir Vasant Karnataki Etc. to larger bench.

MANU-SCOR- 47069-2014

37. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Section 100(5) and Evidence Act
V. Section 27 Witnesses is not required.

Sunil and Another 2001 Cri.L.J. 504

38. Sudhir Vasant Karnataki Section 102 (1) Property does not

V. include immovable property.

The State of Maharashtra

2011 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 326 _

2011 ALL MR (Cri) 96

39. Sunder Singh Section 103 Applicable to search of a

V. place and not of a person. Hence,

State Of Uttar Pradesh independent witnesses not

AIR 1956 SC 411 necessary.

40. Suresh Nanda Section 104 Passport can be

V. impounded by Passport Authority

C.B.I., AIR 2008 SC 1414 and not by Police.

41. The State of Maharashtra and Anr Section 107 and 116 No provision to
V. ask for interim bond.

Mangali Dewaiyya Pupalla

1994 Mh.L.J. 483

N A T R A J L E G A L S O L U T I O N S Page 5

Cr.P.C. Case Laws - By Adv. Abhishek Gupta
Important judgments of (Delhi High Court)
Criminal Procedure Code
Mobile: 9999052336/ 8700521407
42. Rajesh Suryabhan Nayak Section 107 and 123 No interim bond
V.
and C.J.M reduced bond.
The State of Maharashtra
2006(5)Mh.L.J. 243 Section 107 No provision to ask for
interim bond.
43. Pramila Navin Shah
V. Section 107 Sessions Judge has to
interfere if action is illegal.
State of Maharashtra & Ors
2005(15) Criminal. CC. 1051 Section 116 Training to Executive
44. Dattatraya Mahadu Tikkal Magistrates directed by High Court.

V. Section 125 application for muslim
The State of Maharashtra child is tenable.
2014(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri) 439
45. Pravin Vijaykumar Taware Section 125 Daughter in law was
directed to maintain mother in law.
V.
The Special Executive Magistrate Section 125 DNA Test prevails over
the presumption.
2009 (111) BOM.L.R. 3166
46. Allabuksh Karim Shaikh Section 125 Illegitimate child is
entitled for maintenance.
V.
Smt. Noorjahan Allabuksh Shaikh Section125 Judgment shall contain
reasons for finding for grant of
And Another 1994Mh.L.J. 1376 maintenance from the date of
47. Smt. Saroj Govind Mukkawar application.

V. Section 125 Maintenance by Family
Smt. Chandrakalabai Polshetwar Court to major daughter was upheld.

2009(4) Mh.L.J. 665
48. Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik

V.
Lata Nandlal Badwaik and Anr.

AIR 2014 SC 932
49. Bakulabai and Anr.

V.
Gangaram and Anr.
(1988) 1 SCC 537
50. Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas

V.
Hirenbhai

Rameshchandra Vyas

Decided On- 19.11.2014
51. Jagdish Jugtawat

V.
Manju Lata and Ors.

(2002)5 SCC 422

N A T R A J L E G A L S O L U T I O N S Page 6

Cr.P.C. Case Laws - By Adv. Abhishek Gupta
Important judgments of (Delhi High Court)
Criminal Procedure Code
Mobile: 9999052336/ 8700521407

52. Shivaji Baburao Bhabad @ Bhawad Section 125 Major son is not entitled

V. for maintenance.

Sau. Alka Shivaji Bhabad

Crl. W. Petition No. 955 of 2009

53. Jagir Singh Section 125 Major son though

V. student is not entitled for

Ranbir Singh and Anr. maintenance from father.

AIR 1979 SC 381

54. Chinnappaiyan Chellandi Section 125 Permission granted to

V. amend petition.

Chinnathayee Chinnappaiyan

2010(1) Crimes 835

55. Sau. Manda R. Thaore Section 125 Second wifes

V. maintenance rejected but

Sh. Ramaji Ghanshyam Thaore compensation granted in revision.

Crl. Revision Application No. 317-

2006 Decided On- 20.04.2010

56. Dalip Singh Section 125 (4) Adultery not
V. applicable to divorcee.

Rajbala II

(2007) DMC 273

57. Gita Section 125(4) Divorced on cruelty

V. ground is till entitled for

Chandrasekhar maintenance.

58. M. Chinna Karuppasamy Section 125(4) includes adultery by

V. divorced wife.

Kanimozhi 2015 ALL M R ( Cri)615

59. Chanda Preetam Wadate Section 125(4) Isolated instance of

V. adultery is not sufficient to deny

Preetam Ganpatrao Wadate maintenance.

2002(2) Mh.L.J. 482

60. Vanamala (Smt) Section 125(4) Wife does not include

V. Divorcee.

H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta

(1995) 5 SCC 299 Section 127(1) Precondition to
61. Ashok Yeshwant Samant deposit arrears cannot be put.

V.
Smt. Suparna Ashok Samant and

another 1991 Cri.L.J. 766

62. Ahmed Noormohmed Bhatti Section 151 is not ultravires merely

V. because it can be misused.

State of Gujarat and Ors.

AIR 2005 SC 2115

N A T R A J L E G A L S O L U T I O N S Page 7

Cr.P.C. Case Laws - By Adv. Abhishek Gupta
Important judgments of (Delhi High Court)
Criminal Procedure Code
Mobile: 9999052336/ 8700521407

63. Anju Chaudhary Section 154 and 156(3) If the

V. offence is same there cannot be two

State of U.P. and Anr. FIRs. Magistrate can treat application
2013 Cri.L.J. 776 as a complaint.

64. Satvinder Kaur Section 154 and 177 The IO can

V. forward the FIR to the police station

State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) having jurisdiction if the offence was

AIR 1999 SC 3596 beyond own Jurisdiction.

65. Ushaben Section 154 and 198A Police can

V. investigate Section 494 with 498A of

Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada & Ors. IPC as Section 498A is cognizable.

2012 ACR 1859

66. Ganesha Section 154 and 354 The person who

V. lodges the FIR be called the

Sharanappa and anr. Informant and not the Complainant.

AIR 2014 SC 1198

67. M. Narayandas Section 154 FIR reasonableness or

V. Credibility of the said information is

State Of Karnataka And Ors. not a condition precedent for

2004 Cri.L.J. 822 registration of a case.

68. Babubhai Section 154 For deciding tenability of

V. two FIRs sameness test should be

State of Gujarat and Ors. applied.

(2010) 12 SCC 254

69. Ashi Devi and Ors. Section 154 In a 9 years old theft

V. case held that mere delay itself is not
State (NCT of Delhi) a ground to discard a case.

MANU-SC-0526-2014

70. Gosu Jayarami Reddy Section 154 Overwriting limited to

V. converting 4 to 5 in FIR is
State of A.P. immaterial.

(2011) 11 SCC 766
71. Satvinder Kaur Section 154 and 177 The IO can

V. forward the FIR to the police station

State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) having jurisdiction if the offence was

AIR 1999 SC 3596 beyond own Jurisdiction

72. Ganesha Section 154 Person who lodges FIR is

V. called Informant and who files

Sharanappa and anr. complaint is called complainant.

2014 (11) SCALE 541

N A T R A J L E G A L S O L U T I O N S Page 8

Cr.P.C. Case Laws - By Adv. Abhishek Gupta
Important judgments of (Delhi High Court)
Criminal Procedure Code
Mobile: 9999052336/ 8700521407

73. Mrs. Charu Kishor Mehta and etc. Section 154 Police cannot refuse to

V. register the F.I.R. under the pretext

State of Maharashtra and Anr. of preliminary inquiry when

2011 Cri.L.J. 1486 cognizable offences are made

Out.

74. Lalita Kumari Section 154 Police is bound to

V. register F.I.R.

Govt. of U.P. and Ors.

2014 Cri.L.J. 470

75. Satish Narayan Sawant Section 154 police officer going to

V. the place of occurrence to make

State of Goa some survey does not amount to

2009 Cri.L.J. 4655 making an investigation

doc.

76. Mrs. Charu Kishor Mehta Section 154 Police shall register FIR

V. instead of ignoring as civil dispute.

State of Maharashtra and Addl.

Commissioner of Police

Decided in- November 2010

77. Sone Lal & Ors. Case Section 154 Recording FIR is an

AIR 1978 SC 1142 official act and has such

presumption.

78. Mrs. Charu Kishor Mehta and etc. Section 154 Reliability genuineness

V. and credibility of the information are

State of Maharashtra and Anr. not the conditions precedent.

2011 Cri.L.J. 1486

79. M. Narayandas Section 154, Sections 195 and 340

V. do not come in the way of

State Of Karnataka And Ors. investigation by police. On the basis

2004 Cri.L.J. 822 of such investigation the Court

can file a complaint.

80. Surender Kaushik and Ors. Section 154 There cannot be two

V. FIRs of the same person of same

State of incident.

Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

AIR 2013 SC 3614

81. Surender Kaushik and Ors. Section 154 When a FIR is already

V. there sameness test shall be used for

State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. the subsequent FIRs.

AIR 2013 SC 3614

82. State Of Haryana And Ors Section 154 When can the Court

V. pass appropriate orders.

Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors.

1992 AIR 604

N A T R A J L E G A L S O L U T I O N S Page 9

Cr.P.C. Case Laws - By Adv. Abhishek Gupta
Important judgments of (Delhi High Court)
Criminal Procedure Code
Mobile: 9999052336/ 8700521407

83. Satish Narayan Sawant Section 154 When information was

V. cryptic the police officer going to the

State of Goa place of occurrence to make some

2009 Cri.L.J. 4655 survey is not an investigation.

84. Pravin Chandra Mody Section 155 Police can investigate a

V. non- cognizable offence under EC Act

State of Andhra Pradesh along with Section 420 IPC.

AIR 1965 SC 1185

85. Dashrath Kishan Kotkar and Anr. Section 155(2) and (3) Once

V. permission is obtained the procedure

State of Maharashtra applicable to cognazable offences is

1986 Mh.L.J. 986 applicable.

86. Vithal Puna Koli (Shirsath) and Ors. Section 155(2) Obtaining

V. Magistrate's permission is necessary.

The State of Maharashtra

MH-0633-2006

87. State of Maharashtra Section 155(2) permission was not

V. obtained Hence prosecution for

Dharmendra Ambar Mohite offence of Section 145 Police Act was

(10.09.1998 – BOM.HC) held untenable.

88. Mukhedkar Section 155(2) Prosecution for

V. Section 124 of Bom Police Act

The State of Maharashtra, quashed for want of permission

1983 Cri.L.J. 1833 Avinash Madhukar.

89. Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane Section 156 and 397 156(3) of Cr.PC

V. merely mean that an alleged
Chandrasen Jagdevrao Deshmuk cognizable offence should be

2008 Cri.L.J. 376 investigated.

90. Atul Son of Shridhar Kaple Section 156 Section 173(3) and

V. Section 190(1)(c).

State of Maharashtra, thr. Police

Station Officer

2011 113 BOM.L.R. 1549

91. Pravin Chandra Mody Section 156(1) and 173 Police officer

V. can investigate E.C. Act offence

State of Andhra Pradesh along with Section 420.

AIR 1965 SC 1185

92. Sheshrao and Ors. Section 156(1) Charge sheet

V. quashed for

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. want of jurisdiction.

Decided on 24.07.2015

N A T R A J L E G A L S O L U T I O N S Page 10

Cr.P.C. Case Laws - By Adv. Abhishek Gupta
Important judgments of (Delhi High Court)
Criminal Procedure Code
Mobile: 9999052336/ 8700521407
93. Satvinder Kaur
V. Section 156(2) Police can investigate
any cognizable offence and to submit
State (1999) 8 SCC 728
charge sheet before competent
94. Alpic Finance Ltd. court.
V.
Section 156(3) and IPC Section 420
P. Sadasivan and Anr. It must also be shown that there
AIR 2001 SC 1226 existed a fraudulent and dishonest

95. Vinay Tyagi intention at the time of commission
V. of the offence.

Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Ors. Section 156(3) and 173(8) Kinds of
2013 Cri.L.J. 754 order under Section 156(3) are (i)

96. Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors. Initial Investigation, (ii) Further
V. Investigation, (iii) Fresh or de novo

The State of Assam and Anr. or re-investigation-Detail.
1961 Cri.L.J. 39(3JJs) Section 156(3) and 190 Passing
order of Section 156(3) or Search
97. Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors.
V. Warrant is not taking
Cognizance.
The State of Assam and Anr.
1961 Cri.L.J. 39 Section 156(3) and 190 Taking
Cognizance on complaint means
98. Nirmaljit Singh Hoon
V. verification etc.

The State of West Bengal Section 156(3) and 200 Cognizance
AIR 1972 SC 2639 means not mere applying mind but
for the purpose of proceeding under
99. Sachin
100. V. Section 200 and following
101. Privisions.
102. The State of Maharashtra
2014 ALL.M.R (Cri)1833 Section 156(3) and 200 Magistrate
Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd has discretion to reject the prayer

V. and direct for verification etc.
State of Gujarat
2015 (3) SCALE 622 Section 156(3) and 202 No arrest in
Raghu Raj Singh Rousha investigation of Section 202.

V. Section 156(3) and 397 Accused
Shivam Sundaram Promoters shall be impleaded in a revision
against order refusing Section 156.
((2009) 2 SCC 363
Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane Section 156(3) and 398 Interference
in should be in exceptional cases.
V.
Chandrasen Jagdevrao Deshmuk

2008 Cri.L.J. 3761

N A T R A J L E G A L S O L U T I O N S Page 11

Cr.P.C. Case Laws - By Adv. Abhishek Gupta
Important judgments of (Delhi High Court)
Criminal Procedure Code
Mobile: 9999052336/ 8700521407

103. Syed Muzaffaruddin Khan Mohd. Section 156(3) and Section 195 and
104. V. Section 341 Magistrate can order
105. Section 156(3) and after
106. Mohd.Abdul Qadir Mohd. Abdul investigation he can file complaint.
107. 2012 Bom C R(Cri) 375
108.
109. Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane Section 156(3) and Section 397
110. V. Direction by sessions judge for
111. sending signature to the expert set
112. Chandrasen Jagdevrao Deshmukh
113. 2008 Cri.L.J. 3761 aside.

Chandrika Singh Section 156(3) application can be
V. treated as complaint.

State of U.P. Section 156(3) Application should be
2007 Cri.L.J. 3169 supported by affidavit.
Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava & Anr.
Section 156(3) Before the order
V. complainant cannot be asked to call
State of UP & Ors
2015 (96) SCC 287 expert to prove forgery.
Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane

V.
Chandrasen Jagdevrao Deshmukh

2008 Cri.L.J. 3761

Mohd. Yousuf Section 156(3) Complainant should
V. not be examined before order under

Smt. Afaq Jahan and Anr. this section.
AIR 2006 SC 705
Section 156(3) Difference of Section
Srinivas Gundluri and Ors. 156(3) and 202 Cr.P.C. Mere
V.
direction to file charge sheet not
SEPCO (2010) 8 SCC 206 illegal.

Upkar Singh Section 156(3) Direction to register
V. counter FIR is valid.

Ved Prakash and Ors. Section 156(3) Format of order.
AIR 2004 SC 4320
Madhubala Section 156(3) Magistrate can treat
V. an application as a complaint In

Sureshkumar AIR 1997 SC 3104 more than one FIRs sameness test
Anju Chaudhary has to be applied.
V.

State of U.P. and Anr.
2013 Cri.L.J. 776

Central Bureau of Investigation Section 156(3) Magistrate cannot
through S.P., Jaipur direct the CBI investigation.

V.

State of Rajasthan & Anr.

AIR 2001 SC 668

N A T R A J L E G A L S O L U T I O N S Page 12

Cr.P.C. Case Laws - By Adv. Abhishek Gupta
Important judgments of (Delhi High Court)
Criminal Procedure Code
Mobile: 9999052336/ 8700521407
114. K. Selvaraj
115. V. Section 156(3) Magistrate cannot
116. order investigation by the CBI.
117. The Superintendent of
118. Section 156(3) Magistrate has
119. Police and The Inspector of Police discretion not to refer to police and
120. Sachin Raosaheb Jadhav
121. V. to inquire himself into the
122. application.
123. State of Maharashtra Justice
124. Nalawade Section 156(3) Magistrate has
discretion to send or not to send for
Sukhwasi S/o Hulasi
V. investigation.

State of Uttar Pradesh Section 156(3) No cognizance on
police report after first directing for
2008 Cri.L.J. 472
Nilesh Daulatrao Lakhani inquiry.

V. Section 156(3) No order to CBI by
State of Maharashtra Magistrate.
2014(4) Bom CR (Cri) 757
Section 156(3) order after
R.P. Kapur verification was set aside and
V.
directed to proceed.
S.P. Singh AIR 1961 SC 1117
Blue Dart Express Ltd. Section 156(3) order can be
V. challenged in Revision.

The State of Maharashtra Section 156(3) Order does not
2011(2) Crimes 46 amount to taking cognizance 3

Yogiraj Vasantrao Surve Judges Bench.
V.
Section 156(3) order in Section 193
State of Maharashtra IPC offence upheld by Kolkata HC.

2013 ALL.M.R. (Cri) 2059 Section 156(3) order is not taking
R.R. Chari Cognizance.
V.
Section 156(3) Orders interference
The State of Uttar Pradesh by superior Courts normally be in
very exceptional circumstances.
AIR 1951 SC 207
Basanthi Sarkar and Ors.

V.
State of West Bengal and Ors.

MANU-WB-0218-2010
General Officer Commanding

V.
CBI and Anr. AIR 2012 SC 1890

Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane
V.

Chandrasen 2008 Cri.L.J. 3761

125. Ajit Ramrao Thete and others Section 156(3) Original Complaint
126. V. and order should be retained in
127. Court.
The State of Maharashtra and
128. another Bombay (DB) Section 156(3) Petition's Format and
Mohd. Yousuf nomenclature is not material It can
129. V.
130. be treated as complaint.
131. Smt. Afaq Jahan and Anr.
132. 2006(1) KLJ380 Section 156(3) Police investigation
133. may start with registration of FIR
134. Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and while in other cases (CBI, etc.), an
Ors. inquiry may lead to registration of an
V.
FIR.
State of Karnataka and Ors. Section 156(3) Police need not seek
AIR 2012 SC 2326
permission of Magistrate to arrest
Laxminarayan Vishwanath Arya accused.
V.
Section 156(3) Refusing direction for
The State of Maharashtra through investigation and direction for
Senior Inspector of Police and Ors.
verification and statements is taking
2008 Cri.L.J. 1 cognizance.
Raghu Raj Singh Rousha
Section 156(3) Sanction needed for
V. even order under section.
Shivam Sundaram Promoters (P) L
Section 156(3) Simplicitor application
and Anr. (2009) 2 SCC 363 without FIR is tenable.

Karnataka HC Sri. B.V. Acharya, Section 156(3) This section cannot
V. be resorted to after direction to put

Sri. N. Venkateshaiah up for verification.
Mr. Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani,
Section 156(3) When can Magistrate
V. Monitor investigation.
The State of Maharashtra
Section 156(3) While passing the
2010 Cri.L.J. 2723 order the Magistrate has to apply
Pinni Co-op Housing Society and
others Maruti Mathu Gaikwad and mind.
others Bom DB dd on 02.07.2013

CR. APPLN 463510
Sakiri Vasu
V.

State of U.P. and Ors.
AIR 2008 SC 907
Maksud Saiyed
V.

State of Gujarat and Ors.
(2008) 5 SCC 668

135. Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar Section 156(5) and 181(4)
136. V. Jurisdiction to be of the JMFC and not
137.
138. State of Gujarat and Ors. of the PSO.
139. AIR 2010 SC 715
Section 156(6) Application without
140. Mr. Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani prior F.I.R. tenable.
141. V.
142. Section 157 No statutory bar to the
The State of Maharashtra informant-police officer for taking up
2010 Cri.L.J. 2723
the investigation.
State rep. by Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Section 157 and PC Act Investigation
Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu can be started on information or
V. otherwise means without FIR.
V. Jayapaul
Section 159 does not enable
(22.03.2004 -SC) (2004)5 SCC 223 Magistrate to stop investigation.
The State of Uttar Pradesh
V. Gives limited power to
Bhagwant Kishore Joshi Magistrate to direct investigate
AIR 1964 SC 221 proceed himself but no power to stop
S.N. Sharma
V. investigation. Meant to give
Magistrate the power of directing
Bipen Kumar Tiwari and Ors. investigation where the police decide
AIR 1970 SC 786
not to investigate the case
Ashok Debbarma under the proviso to Section 157(1)
V.
Section 161 and 154 Omission to
State of Tripura name accused when he was part of
(2014) 4 SCC 747
State of N.C.T. of group is not fatal.

Delhi Section 161 and 162 and Evi Act
V. Section 145 Statement on TV

Mukesh channel subsequent to charge sheet
(2013) 2 SCC 58 is not covered Bipin Panchal
Mahesh Janardhan Gonnade Distinguished.

Vs. Section 161 and 164 Testimony of
State of Maharashtra I.O. and Spl Judl. Magi. cannot be
(2008) 13 SCC 271
disbelieved and discredited.

143. Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Section 161 Every omission is not
144. Debbarma contradiction.
145. V.
146. Section 161 Inadmissible portions in
147. State of Tripura the panchana should be marked by
148. (2014) 4 SCC 747 the APP and excluded by the Juge
149.
150. State of Gujarat and How to appreciate
151. V. Witnesses.

Kathi Ramku Aligbhai Section 161 Signature of witness
1986 Cri.L.J. 239 does not render evidence
inadmissible.
State of U.P.
V. Section 161 Statement of witness
need not be there in inquest
M.K. Anthony panchanama.
AIR 1985 SC 48.
Nirpal Singh and Ors. Section 161 Statement reading over
to witness does not make his
V. evidence inadmissible.
State of Haryana
AIR 1977 SC 1066 Section 161 Statement should not be
Gujarat High Court Full Bench Nathu read over to the witness by the
police.
Manchhu
V. Section 161(3) Statement cannot be
used.
The State of Gujarat
1978 Cri.L.J. 448 Section 161 In view of exception of
Suresh Section 162(2) to Section 161,
V.
statement of accused under Section
The State of Maharashtra (DB) 27 Evidence Act need not be signed
Decided on- 31.10.2014
Md. Ankoos and Ors. by accused.
V. Section 162 and 161 and 91
Magistrate can call case diary of
The Public Prosecutor, High Court of
A.P. another case.

AIR 2010 SC 566
Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel

V.
State of Punjab
(2012) 11 SCC 205

State of Kerala
V.

Babu & Ors.
AIR1999 SC 2161

152. Mr. Prakash Vernekar Section 162 and 452 and S.27 not
153. V. barred for deciding custody of
154. muddemal.
155. State of Goa
156. Section 162 Any confession made to
157. 2007 Cri.L.J. 4649 a police officer in course of
Pakala Narayana Swami
158. investigation whether a discovery is
159. V. made or not is excluded.
160. Emperor
161. AIR 1939 PC 47 Section 162 Bar is not applicable in
civil or other proceeding.
Khatri and Ors.
V. Section 162 covers statements to
police during TIP.
State of Bihar and Ors.
Section 162 Statement of I.O. in the
AIR1981 SC 1068 inquest what he saw is admissible
Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma
Section 164 and IPC Section 376
V. Directions to Police and Magistrates.
The State of Bombay
Section 164 Confession explained.
AIR 1955 SC 104
George & Ors Section 164 Confession without
V. signature of accused inadmissible.
State Of Kerala
Section 164 Signature of accused is
(1998) 4 SCC 605 mandatory.
State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere
Section 164 statement of victim girl
Police should not be disclosed to any
V. person till final report.

Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna
2014 (3)BomCR(Cri)98

The State of Maharashtra
V.

Prakash Dhawal Khairnar
1997 Bom CR (Cri) 367
Dhananjaya Reddy etc.

V.
State of Karnataka
AIR 2001 SC 1512
Abdul Razak Shaikh

V.
State of Maharashtra

1987 Mh L J 863
State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere

Police
V.

Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna
2014 ALL M R(Cri) 4484 (2014)

8S CC913

162. State Of Maharashtra Section 167 60th or 90th day though
163. V. holiday cannot be excluded.
164.
Sharad B. Sarda Section 167 After charge sheet bail
165. 1983 (1) Bom CR 578 under Section 436 or 437 only.
166.
167. Abdul Wahid Section 167 Allowing Home Food is in
168. V. disreation of Magistrate.
169.
170. State of Maharashtra Section 167 and 4 and POCSO Act
171. on 27 August 1991 JFCM has no jurisdiction to remand
172. take cognizance and commit under
Asgar Yusuf Mukadam and Ors.
V. POCSO Act.
Section 167 and 309 If accused was
State of Maharashtra and The not arrested till taking cognizance his
Superintendent of Prison
2004 Cri. L. J. 4312 remand can be granted.

Kum. Shraddha Meghshyam Velhal Section 167 and 437 Transit Remand
V. granted by rejecting bail.

State of Maharashtra Section 167 and Section 36 of NDPS
Act Magistrate remanded for more
State through C.B.I.
V. than 15 days.
Section 167 bail in serious offences
Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar and others
AIR 1997 SC 2494 NDPS can be cancelled.

Re. Jakir Khan @ Jaker Section 167 For Section 304B of IPC
MANU-WB- 0253-2012 90 days SC

Daji Govind Kamble Rajeev Chowdhary case referred.
V.
Section 167 for TADA offences
State of Maharashtra explained.
B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Collector
Section 167 Free legal aid should be
V. provided from the stage of remand.

Leidomann Heinrich And Another

on 20 November, 1990
Bhupinder Singh & Ors

V.
Jarnail Singh & Anr

on 13 July, 2006
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur

V.
State of Maharashtra

on 12 July, 1994
Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir

Kasab
V.

State of Maharashtra
AIR 2012 SC 3565

173. Khatri And Others Section 167 Free Legal aid to be
174. V. given at remand stage.
175.
176. State Of Bihar Section 167 in POCSO Act offence
177. Magistrate can entertain first
178. AIR 1981 SC 928 remand.
179. Prasad V.
180. V. Section 167 in Section 498A IPC the
181. Magistrate authorising detention
182. State of Kerala without recording reasons is liable
for departmental action.
ILR 2013 (2) Kerala 1010
Arnesh Kumar Section 167 Limitation is 60 days for
V. 10 years imprisonment.
State of Bihar
Section 167 Magistrate and Judges
AIR 2014 SC 2756 shall inform accused about free legal

Nijamuddin Mohammad Bashir Khan aid.
V.
Section 167 Magistrate can differ
State of Maharashtra with the I.O.
On 7 July, 2006
Section 167 Magistrate has to look
Khatri And Others into facts before granting remand.
V.
Section 167 Magistrate is under
State Of Bihar obligation to inform availability of
1981 SCC (1) 627
Harihar Chaitanya free legal aid Free Legal aid.

V. Section 167 No police custody of
State Of U.P. imprisoned accused.
1990 Cri.L.J. 2082
Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr. Ushaben Section 167 PCR should be within the
first Fifteen days only and that period
V.
cannot be extended under any
State of Gujarat and Ors. circumstances.
AIR 2013 SC 313
Khatri And Others
V.
State Of Bihar
1981 SCC (1) 627

State
V.

Santokh Singh
AIR 43 1956 Madhya Pradesh 13

CBI
V.
Anupam Kulkarni
(1992)3SCC141

183. Rajeev Chowdhary case referred Section 167 Period is 60 days for
Nijamuddin Mohammad Bashir Khan Section 395 and 366 IPC.
184.
185. V. Section 167 Period is 90 days for
186. State of Maharashtra Section 304B IPC.

187. On 7 July, 2006 Section 167 Police custody can be in
188. Bhupinder Singh & Ors the first 15 days only. Cancellation of
189.
190. V. bail set aside.
191. Jarnail Singh & Anr
192. Section 167 Remand in absence of
on 13 July, 2006 accused who is not produced from
Devender Kumar
jail is not illegal.
V.
State of Haryana Section 167 Right to bail is defeated
2010 Cri.L.J. 3849 if not availed already.

Narain Section 167 Supreme Court
V. directions regarding arrested

Superintendent, Central Jail, accused.
New Delhi
Section 167 Surrender is different
AIR 1971 SC 178 from production by police.

Mr. Uday Mohanlal Acharya Section 167 Transfer of Under
V. prisoners to other jails is subject to

State of Maharashtra Judicial order.
2001 Cri.L.J. 4563
Arnesh Kumar Section 167(2) Absconding accused
V. arrested after charge sheet can be
State of Bihar
AIR 2014 SC 2756 remanded to PCR.
State of WB
V. Section 167(2) Accused released on
Dinesh Dalmia default ground cannot be arrested on
AIR 2007 SC 1801 only count of filing of charge sheet.

State of Maharashtra and Ors.
V.

Saeed Sohail Sheikh etc.
AIR 2013 SC 168

Central Bureau of Investigation
V.

Rathin Dandapat and Ors.
2015 (9) SCALE 120
Aslam Babalal Desai
V.
State of Maharashtra
AIR 1993 SC 1

193. Sajid Basir Shaikh Section 167(2) After charge sheet
194. V. Right of accused is defeated if he
195.
State of Maharashtra fails to exercise.
196. 2005 (3) Mh.L.J. 860
197. Section 167(2) and 437 Mere filing of
Bashir And Others charge sheet not sufficient to cancel
198. V.
199. bail.
200. State Of Haryana
201. AIR 1978 SC 55 Section 167(2) and NDPS Act Limit of
202. B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Collector of 15 days is for police custody and not

Customs for other agency custody.
V.
Section 167(2) and S.4(2) Magistrate
Mohmed Azan Khan and others has jurisdiction to remand in
1990 Mh.L.J. 582 Customs Act case.

Directorate of Enforcement Section 167(2) and Unlawful
V. Activities Act Section 43D Magistrate
has to grant default bail after the 90
Deepak Mahajan and another
AIR 1994 SC 1775 days under Unlawful Activities
Act.
Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi
V. Section 167(2) appicable to accused
produced by other than police.
State, GNCTD and Ors.
AIR 2012 SC 660 Section 167(2) applicable to NDPS
Act.
Directorate of Enforcement
V. Section 167(2) Application filed for
default bail cannot be rejected due to
Deepak Mahajan and another filing of charge sheet before decision
AIR 1994 SC 1775
Union of India (UOI) of bail application.
V. Section 167(2) Bail cancelled by
sessions court under section 439(2)
Thamisharasi and Ors.
(1995) 4 SCC 190 in NDPS Case.

Union of India (UOI) Section 167(2) Bail cannot be
V. cancelled on mere count of filing

Nirala Yadav charge sheet leter on.
AIR 2014 SC 3036

Anil kumar
V.

State of Maharashtra
1990 Cri.L.J. 2058
Bashir And Others
V.
State Of Haryana
on 3 October, 1977

203. Chaganti Satyanarayana and Ors. Section 167(2) Date of production
204. V. before magistrate is starting point.
205.
206. State of Andhra Pradesh Section 167(2) Entry in diary in not a
207. sine quo non.
AIR 1986 SC 2130
208. Directorate of Enforcement Section 167(2) For Section 306 IPC
209. period for filing chargesheet against
210. V.
211. Deepak Mahajan and another UTP is 60 days.
212.
AIR 1994 SC 1775 Section 167(2) From charge sheet till
Nijamuddin Mohammad Bashir Khan committal it is inquiry.

and Anr. Section 167(2) If charge sheet is not
V. filed in time explanation of IO to be

State of Maharashtra called.
2006 Cri.L.J. 4266
Section 167(2) in Unlawful Activities
State of Uttar Pradesh (Prevention) Act, 1967.
V.
Section 167(2) is applicable to
Lakshmi Brahman and Anr. accused arrested under FERA Act.

AIR 1983 SC 439 Section 167(2) is not applicable to
Bhulabai w/o Barkaji Matre offences under TOHO Act as it
provides for complaint only.
V.
Shankar Section 167(2) Magistrate has to
judicially scrutinise circumstances
Barkaji Matre and others and if satisfied order police custody.

1999(3) Mh.L.J. 227 Section 167(2) Magistrate kept
Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi application undecided till charge
sheet Held accused is entitled for
V.
State GNCTD and Ors. bail.

AIR 2012 SC 660
Directorate of Enforcement

V.
Deepak

Mahajan and another
AIR 1994 SC 1775

Jeewan Kumar Raut and Anr.
V.

Central Bureau of Investigation
AIR 2009 SC 2763

Satyajit Ballulbhai Desai and Ors.
V.

State of Gujarat
I(2015) CCR 321 (SC)
Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi

V.
State, GNCTD and Ors. AIR

2012 SC 660

213. Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. Section 167(2) Magistrate shall
V. inform the accused about the right to
214.
215. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, free legal aid and to provide it.
216. Patna
217. Section 167(2) Merits not be
218. AIR 1979 SC 1369 considered.
219. Aslam Babalal Desai
220. Section 167(2) Not indefeasible.
221. V.
State of Maharashtra Section 167(2) Pending bail
222. application allowed.
223. AIR 1993 SC 1
Sajid Basir Shaikh Section 167(2) Period is 60 days for
Section 306 IPC.
V.
State of Maharashtra Section 167(2) Period is 60 days for
Section 306 IPC.
2005 (3) MhLJ 860
Umashanker And Ors. Section 167(2) Period is 60 days for
Section 386 IPC as punishment does
V.
State Of Madhya Pradesh not exceed 10 years.
Nijamuddin Mohammad Bashir Khan Section 167(2) Period is 90 days for

and Anr. Section 304B IPC.
V.
Section 167(2) Remand under FERA
State of Maharashtra Act permissible.
2006 Cri.L.J. 4266
Section 167(2) Sanction is not part
Shakil Khan Yasin Khan of investigation Magistrate cannot
V.
refuse chargesheet.
The State of Maharashtra Section 167(2) When Charge sheet is
MANU-MH-0047-2014 filed and Sanction awaited Hence no
Rajeev Chaudhary
V. bail.
State (N.C.T.) of Delhi
AIR 2001 SC 2369
Bhupinder Singh & Ors
V.
Jarnail Singh & Anr
on 13 July, 2006

Directorate of Enforcement
V.

Deepak
Mahajan and another AIR

1994 SC 1775
Palanisamy @ Palani

V.
State rep. by Inspector of Police

2003-1-LW(Crl)239
Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain

V.
State of Maharashtra and Anr.

(2013) 3 SCC 77

224. Nijamuddin Mohammad Bashir Khan Section 167(2)(a)(ii) 60 days for 10
225. V. years offence.
226.
State of Maharashtra Section 169 and 173 Magistrate
227. on 7 July, 2006 cannot direct police to file
228. chargesheet.
229. Abhinandan Jha and Ors.
230. V. Section 169 application before
231. magistrate is not tenable.
232. Dinesh Mishra
233. AIR 1968 SC 117 Section 169 Magistrate cannot direct
234. Rameshbhai Jagjivan Vora police to file chargesheet.

Authorised Section 169 Magistrate does not
Signatory of Gaekwad come in picture under this section.

V. Section 169 Mere report without final
State of Gujarat and Ors. report under Section 173 is not
tenable.
2010 GLH (2) 588
Abhinandan Jha and Ors. Section 169 report before
Magistration is not tenable.
V.
Dinesh Mishra Section 169 Report is report of action
AIR 1968 SC 117 taken by IO and not final report.
Mohd. Rafique Abdul Rahman
Section 169 Report received
V. regarding some accused. Court can
State of Maharashtra
2013 Bom.C.R.(Cri) 251 direct investigation under
Section 156(3).
Maroti
V. Section 173 and 2(d) A plaint by
sub-inspector of RPF is a complaint
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
2015(4) Bom.C.R.(Cri) 504 and not a chargesheet.
Mohd. Rafique Section 173 and Rule 203 of the
V. Bombay Police Manual, Volume III
State of Maharashtra Summaries A B and C explained.
2013 Bom CR (Cri)251
Maroti
V.
The State of Maharashtra
Decided on 04.02.2015
Kedar Narayan Parida & Ors
V.
State Of Orissa & Anr (2009)
9 SCC 538
The State of Bihar
V.

Chandra Bhushan Singh & Ors.
AIR 2001 SC 429
State
V.

Shankar Bhaurao Khirode
AIR 1959 Bom 437

235. Union Public Service Commission Section 173 Court was not justified
236. V. in accepting final report without
237. notice to the informant.
S. Papaiah and others
238. AIR 1997 SC 3876 Section 173 Electronic charge sheet -
239. Thana Singh SC directed to supply copy of
240. V. chargesheet in electronic form
241. additionally.
242. Central Bureau of Narcotics
243. (2013) 2 SCC 590 Section 173 Options available to
244. Popular Muthiah Magistrate.
245. V.
Section 173 Reinvestigation and
State represented by Inspector of further investigation is explained.
Police
Section 173 Report may be one
2006 (2) ACR 2157 (SC) under Section 169 or 170 Magistrate
Vinay Tyagi
V. cannot direct to file chargesheet.
Irshad Ali
Section 173 SC directed to supply
(2013) 5 SCC 762 copy of chargesheet in electronic
Abhinandan Jha and Ors.
form additionally.
V.
Dinesh Mishra Section 173 When cognizance is said
AIR 1968 SC 117 to be taken.
Thana Singh
Section 173(2)(I) Different situations
V. before Magistrate are discussed.
Central Bureau of Narcotics
Section 173(2)(i) Magistrate to issue
(2013) 2 SCC 590 Notice to the informant if not taking

Bandi Kotayya Cognizance.
V.
Section 173(8) (2 Judges Bench
State (S.H.O. Nandigama) and Ors. held) Magistrates prior permission is
AIR 1966 AP 377 not required for further investigation-

Chittaranjan Mirdha Reinvestigation is distinct.
V. Section 173(8) Accused directed to

Dulal Ghosh and Anr. appear for interrogation without
(2009) 6 SCC 661 being arrested.

Jakia Nasim Ahesan & Anr.
V.

State Of Gujarat
AIR 2012 SC 243
Rama Chaudhary

V.
State of Bihar
AIR 2009 SC 2308
Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and ors.

V.
State of Gujarat
(2009) 6 SCC 332

246. State through C.B.I. Section 173(8) Accused subsequently
247. V. arrested Magistrate has dicretion to

248. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar and others try together or separately.
249. AIR 1997 SC 2494
250. Hemant Dhasmane Section 173(8) can be triggered by
V. Magistrate.
251. Central Bureau of
252. Section 173(8) Permits further
253. Investigation and anr. investigation, and even dehors any
254. AIR 2001 SC 2721
255. direction from the Court as such.
256. Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi
V. Section 173(8) Police has power to
further investigate but to inform and
State of Gujarat and Ors.
AIR 2004 SC 2078 seek formal permission of
Ram Lal Narang Magistrate.
V.
Section 173(8) Police should inform
State (Delhi Administration) the Magistrate and seek formal
AIR 1979 SC 1791 permission.

Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Section 173(8) Magistrate has
Vallabha Venkata Vishwandadha jurisdiction to direct further
investigation.
Maharaj
V. Section 177, 178 and 181 Objection
of jurisdiction to be raised before
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors summoning Court.
AIR 1999 SC 2332
Section 177 does not govern Section
Chandra Babu 223(d) Court can try offences
V. committed in same course of

State and Ors. transaction in other jurisdiction.
(2015) 8 SCC 774 Section 177 Illtreatment took at
Krishna Kumar Variar husbands place No part of offence at
her parents place. Hence complaint
V.
Share Shoppe returned.
(2010) 12 SCC 485 Section 177 to 186 Complaint
State of Maharashtra returning procedure laid down by

V. Madras High Court.
Anjanabai
1997 Cri.L.J. 2309 Section 187 If the offence took
beyond jurisdiction, the Magistrate
Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. should summon accused and then
V.
transfer.
Inspector of Police, Chennai and
Anr. AIR 2004 SC 4286
Mahender Goyal
V.

Messers Kadamba International
2014 Cri.L.J. 1645
Mrs. Minguelin Lobo
V.

Smt. Archana Sawant
MANU-MH-1302-2004

257. Trisuns Chemical Industry Section 187 Power of any Magistrate
258. V. of the First Class to take cognizance
259.
260. Rajesh Agarwal and others of the offence is not impaired by
AIR 1999 SC 3499 territorial restrictions.
261.
262. Musaraf Hossain Khan Section 188 Convenience of the
263. V. Victim is important.
264.
Bhageeratha Engg. Ltd. and Ors. Section 189A IPC Section 494
265. AIR 2006 SC 1288 cognizable with Section 498A on
266. Ushaben
V. police report cognizable.

Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada and Section 190 Acceptance of final
Ors. 2012 ACR 1859 report does not debar the Magistrate
from taking cognizance on the basis
Kishore Kumar Gyanchandani
V. of the materials produced in a
complaint proceeding.
G.D. Mehrotra And Anr.
AIR 2002 SC 483 Section 190 and 319 Magistrate can
take cognizance against the accused
Uma Shankar
V. named in FIR but omitted in the
chargesheet.
State of Bihar and Anr.
(2010) 9 SCC 479 Section 190 At the stage of taking
SWIL Ltd. cognizance there is no question of
V.
State of Delhi Section 319 Messers.
(2001) 6 SCC 670
Section 190 Faulty Investiation not
SITA case Bombay (DB) State to vitiate the trial unless there was
V.
prejudice.
Mainabai
AIR 1962 Bom 202 Section 190 In Sessions cases
Magistrate has to see only sufficient
Rakesh & anr
V. ground for proceeding and not
required to weigh evidence
State of Uttar Pradesh
2014 STPL (Web) 524 SC meticulously SC Nupur TalwarCentral
Bureau of Investigation.
H.S. Bains
V. Section 190 Magistrate accepted B
final report but proceded under
State (Union Territory of Section 200 and 202 and took
Chandigarh) cognizance.

(1980) 4 SCC 631 Section 190 Magistrate can differ
Vijay Kant Thakur and Anr. with PSO on police report and issue

V. process for different sections.
Stale of Bihar and Anr.

2010 Cri.L.J. 4190

267. Rajinder Prasad Section 190 Magistrate can take
268. V. cognizance against other accused on
269.
270. Bashir and ors. subsequent date also.
271. AIR 2001 SC 3524
272. Chittaranjan Mirdha Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate can take
273. cognizance aginst other than charge
274. V.
275. Dulal Ghosh and Anr. sheeted.
276.
277. (2009) 6 SCC 661 Section 190 Notice to informant is
India Carat Pvt. Ltd necessary if cognizance is not taken.

V. Section 190 Options to Magistrate
State Of Karnataka & Anr. explained.

on 15 February, 1989 Section 190 Passing order of Section
Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors. 156(3) or Search Warrant is not
taking Cognizance.
V.
The State of Assam and Anr. Section 190 Trial is not vitiated if the
cognizance is valid.
1961 Cri.L.J. 39(3JJs)
M.C. Mehta Section 190(1)(b) Magistrate can
V. proceed against accused not charge

Union of India (UOI) and Ors. sheeted.
(2007) 1 SCC 110
Rajinder Prasad Section 190(1)(b) Magistrate can
V. take cognizance from the material of
Bashir and ors.
AIR 2001 SC 3524 final report even if police say no
offence madeout.
India Carat Pvt. Ltd.
V. Section 190(1)(b) Options to
Magistrate He can take cognizance
State of Karnataka & Anr. from material of final report even if
AIR 1989 SC 885
police say no offence madeout.
India Carat Pvt. Ltd. Section 193 and SC and ST Act Trial
V.
is not vitiated on mere count that
State of Karnataka and Anr. Sessions Court directly accepted the
AIR 1989 SC 885
chargesheet.
Rattiram and Ors. Section 193 Charge-sheet to be
V. returned to police for presenting
before JMFC for committal in SC and
State of M.P. thr. Inspector of Police
AIR 2012 SC 1485 ST POA Act Referring
Ratiram and others Officer.
V.
State of M.P

Kishun Singh and Ors.
V.

State of Bihar
(1993) 2 SCC 16

278. Daulat Ram Section 193 On committal Sessions
279. V. Court gets jurisdiction to take
280.
281. State of Punjab cognizance against new accused on
282. AIR 1962 SC 1206 same material
283.
284. M. Narayandas Section 195 and IPC Section 182 it is
285. V. incumbent that a complaint in writing
should be made by the public servant
286. State Of Karnataka And Ors.
287. 2004 Cri.L.J. 822 concerned for only.
288. Section 195 and Section 340 Court
KAMLAPATI TRIVEDI can file complaint on the basis of FIR
V. and investigation provided 340 is

STATE OF WEST BENGAL followed.
1979 AIR 777 Section 195 Complaint for Section
500 IPC maintenable though the act
Mahesh Chand Sharma
V. falls under Section 211
IPC also.
State of U.P. and Ors.
(2009) 15 SCC 519 Section 195 No bar to complaint of
false mutation entry outside court.
Syed Muzaffaruddin Khan Mohd.
V. Section 195 Not a bar to order of
Section 156(3) as the bar comes
Mohd.Abdul Qadir Mohd. Abdul after investigation Then Court can
M.L. Sethi
V. file complaint.
Section 195 Registrar Co-op.
R.P. Kapur and Anr.
AIR 1967 SC 528 societies is not a Court.

State of Punjab Section 195 There can be no
V. objection to the continuance of
proceedings relating to offences for
Brij Lal Palta
AIR 1969 SC 355 other than those covered by
Nandkishor Laxminarayan Sections 182, 211 and 193 IPC.
Mundhada And Ors Section 195 Will forged prior to
2008 Cri.L.J. 990 production before court. No bar.

Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. Section 195(1) Bars unless the
V. complaint is by the Court.

Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. Section 195(1)(b) attracted for
AIR 2005 SC 2119 Section 211 IPC.

Abdul Rehman and Ors.
V.

K.M. Anees-ul-Haq
2012 Cri.L.J. 1060
Kamlapati Trivedi

V.
State of West Bengal

AIR 1979 SC 777

289. Chartered Accountants of India Section 195(1)(b) Complaint by
290. V. Court required for Section 211
291.
292. Vimal Kumar Surana and Anr. offence on False police
293. (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 442 Report.
294. M.S. Sheriff
295. V. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) and 4 Case on
296. police report is tenable by excluding
297. The State of Madras and Ors.
298. AIR 1954 SC 397 the offences which can be taken
299. cognizance on complaint.
Durgacharan Naik and Ors.
V. Section 195(3) Criminal proceedings
should be given precedence and the
State of Orissa civil proceedings should be stayed.
AIR 1966 SC 1775
General Officer Commanding Section 197 (Overruled) For want of
sanction accused was acquitted
V. instead of discharge.
CBI and Anr.
AIR 2012 SC 1890 Section 197 and P.C. Act Section 19
State of Madhya Pradesh Sanction is required for taking
cognizance and not for
V. taking charge sheet.
Sheetla Sahai and Ors.
Section 197 Criminal Breach of trust
(2009) 8 SCC 617 is not part of duty.

Ram Kumar Section 197 For want of sanction
V. accused was aquitted instead of

State of Haryana discharge.
AIR 1987 SC 735
Section 197 Necessit of sanction can
State of U.P. be considered after evidence when it
V. cannot be decided without evidence.

Paras Nath Singh Section 197 not applicable to public
2009 Cri.L.J. 3069 sector undertaking employee.
Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain
Section 197 Power under Section
V. 156(3) is discretionary.
Pandey Ajay Bhushan and Ors.
Section 197 Real test is if the
AIR 1998 SC 1524 complained acts were not done
should it amount to dereliction of
Mohd. Hadi Raja duty then sanction is necessary.
V.

State of Bihar and Anr.
AIR 1998 SC 1945

Parkash Singh Badal and Anr.
V.

State of Punjab and Ors
(2007) 1 SCC 1

Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh &
Ors

V.

Jammal Patel and Ors.

AIR 2001 SC 2198

300. Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain Section 197 Whether the accused
301. V. was discharging public servant's duty
302. or not can be considered during the
303. Pandey Ajay Bhushan and Ors.
304. AIR 1998 SC 1524 progress of the case.
Section 198 and Section 495 of IPC
305. Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas complainant died mother continued
306. V.
307. complaint.
308. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
309. AIR 1967 SC 983 Section 199 Where police took no
310. Ushaben action inspite of information remedy
V.
lies in filing complaint.
Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada & Ors.
2012 ACR 1859 Section 200 in N.I. Act cases
Affidavits are allowed in lieu of
Divine Retreat Centre
V. verification.

State of Kerala & Ors. Section 200 Second complaint on
AIR 2008 SC 1614 same facts when tenable remanded

Rajesh Bhalchandra Chalke to High Court.
V.
Section 202 Amended Examining
State of Maharashtra and Emco witnesses is a compliance of
Dynatorq Pvt. Ltd. postponement.

2011 (1) Mh.L.J. 244 Section 202 In session triable
Devendra Kishanlal Dagalia offences it is not mandatory but
advisable to examine all witnesses.
V.
Dwarkesh Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Section 202 Inquiry mandatory when
accused is from far away place.
AIR 2014 SC 655
Vijay Dhanuka Etc. Section 202 Once complaint was
quashed on the ground of similar
V. complaint being pending further
Najima Mamtaj Etc.
2014 Cri.L.J. 2295 complaint is not tenable.
Section 202 Shall does not mean
Shivjee Singh mandatory Not necessary to examine
V.
all witnesses in inquiry.
Nagendra Tiwary and Ors.
AIR 2010 SC 2261 Section 203 Magistrate has no
Magistrate and Ors. jurisdiction to recall the process.
AIR1998SC128

Rajeev Sawhney
V.

State Bank of Mauritius Ltd. & Ors.
2011(6) Mh.L.J. 401
Shivjee Singh
V.

Nagendra Tiwary and Ors.
AIR2010SC2261

311. Adalat Prasad Section 203 Sessions Trial case
312. V. dismissed by Magistrate an error
313.
314. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. within jurisdiction.
315. (2004) 7 SCC 338
316. Section 204 (Check this ratio) On
317. Kewal Krishan Lachman Das receiving police report process need
318. V.
not be issued.
319. Suraj Bhan and Anr.
320. AIR 1980 SC 1780 Section 204 Adalat Prasad case
321. Nilesh Daulatrao Lakhani applicable to Summons and Warrant

V. cases.
State of Maharashtra
2014 (4) Bom CR (Cri) 757 Section 204 Challenge to jurisdiction
Subramanium Sethuraman shall be made by application before

V. trial court.
State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Section 204 Check this ratio On
(2004) 13 SCC 324 receiving police report process need
Krishna Kumar Variar
not be issued.
V.
Share Shoppe Section 204 Court can insist for
2010 Cri.L.J. 3848 process fee in non cognizable
Nilesh Daulatrao Lakhani offences.

V. Section 204 order is not interlocutory
State of Maharashtra Magistrate cannot review.
2014 (4) Bom CR (Cri)757
Bhushan Kumar and Anr. Section 204 Summons is a process
issued by court calling to appear;
V. Taking cognizance means becoming
State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
aware of and to take notice of
AIR 2012 SC 1747 judicially.
Bhushan Kumar and Anr.
Section 209 After committal it cannot
V. be said that the Magistrate has
State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. jurisdiction over the case.

AIR 2012 SC 1747 Section 209 Committal under the
new Code is not an enquiry strictly
Raj Kishore Prasad
V. speaking.

State of Bihar and another Section 209 Magistrate has a duty to
AIR 1996 SC 1931 secure the Vicera Report etc before

Bhushan Kumar and Anr. the committal.
V.

State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
(2012) 5 SCC 422

Chhotan Sao and Anr.
V.

State of Bihar
AIR 2014 SC 907

322. Raj Kishore Prasad Section 209 Magistrate has no power
323. V. to summon a new accused at the
324. stage of committal.
325. State of Bihar and another
326. AIR 1996 SC 1931 Section 209 Supplying copies under
327. Section 207 is judicial function and
328. State of Uttar Pradesh without its compliance there can be
329. V.
330. no committal.
331. Lakshmi Brahman and Anr. Section 209 Without obtaining the
332. AIR 1983 SC 439
forensic report committal by
Chhotan Sao and anr Magistrate is mechanical and without
V.
applying mind.
State of Bihar Section 210 Clubbing of police case
AIR 2014 SC 907 and complaint case is not permissible
when the accused or the offences are
Pal @ Palla
V. not same.
Section 212(2) is an enabling
State of Uttar Pradesh
(2010) 10 SCC 123 provision.

State Section 212, 219 and 220 are
V. enabling provisions for joinder of

Ram Kanwar trials.
1984 (1) Crimes 1040
Section 218 and 219 Charge IPC
Ranchhodlal Section 409 Consecutive sentence in
V.
separate trials upheld.
State Of Madhya Pradesh
AIR 1965 SC 1248 Section 218 and S.409 IPC Accused
Ranchhodlal never objected joint trial and hence
V.
consenting party and hence
State Of Madhya Pradesh conviction upheld.
1965 AIR 1248
Manoharlal Lohe Section 218 Difference between
V. irregularity and illegality in joinder of

State of Madhya Pradesh Charges.
1981 Cri.L.J. 1563
Section 219 Charge IPC Section 409
Birichh Bhuian and Ors. Consecutive sentence in separate
V. trials upheld.

State of Bihar Section 220 Clubbing of police case
AIR 1963 SC 1120 for Section 498A and 306 and

Ranchhodlal complaint case for Section 302 and
V. 304B against same accused has been

State Of Madhya Pradesh upheld.
1965 AIR 1248

Aklak Ahmed Fakruddin Patel
V.

State of Maharashtra
2011 Cri.L.J. 126

333. Manivannan And S. Krishnamoorthy Section 220 Complainant filed
334. V. separate cases of Section 420 IPC
335.
P.R. Adhikesavan and Section 138 NI Act Held
336. MANU-TN-0178-2008 separate trials were not improper.
337. Narinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. Section 220 Each depositors case is
338.
339. V. individual offence.
340. Union of India and ors
341. Section 220 For separate cheque
342. AIR 2001 SC 3810 separate trial has been justified.

343. Nova Vision Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Section 220 Same transaction
Anr. Kidnapping from Nagpur Rape in
V.
Jabalpur Either Court can try.
State and Anr.
2011 Cri.L.J. 868 Section 221 Convicted for Section
306 along with Section 498A though
Praveen
V. charged with Section 304B and
498A.
State Of Maharashtra
2001 Cri.L.J. 3417 Section 222(2) Major and the minor
K. Prema S. Rao offences must be cognate offences
V. having main ingredients in common.
Yadla Srinivasa Rao
AIR 2003 SC 11 Section 223 On the application of
accused the Magistrate may
Samadhan Baburao Khakare and
Ors. amalgamate cases. He can read one
V. case evidence in the other.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Section 226 and 231 APP can choose
1995(2) Mh.L.J. 464 and pick his witnesses.

Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav Section 226 Anticipatory bail in UP
V. upheld by SC.

State through C.B.I Section 227 and 239 Material
AIR 2003 SC 3838 produced by accused not to be

Banti @ Guddu considered.
V.
Section 227 Documents produced by
State of Madhya Pradesh accused cannot be considered at the
AIR 2004 SC 261
time of Charge.
(Satish Mehra (1996) 9 SCC 766
Overruled) in

State Of Orissa V.
Debendra Nath Padhi
A.I.R. 2005 SCC 369

Dinesh Tiwari
V.

State of Uttar Pradesh
On 07.07.2014 MANU-SC-0587-

2014
V. C. Shukla

V.
State Through C.B.I

AIR 1980 SC AIR

344. Niranjan Singh Karan Singh Section 227 Framing Charge is
345. V. Interlocutory order.
346.
347. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijje Section 227 Though Trial cannot
348. AIR 1990 SC 1962 consider documents of accused High
349.
350. Smt. Snehalata Mondal Court can consider under Section
351. V. 482.
352.
353. State of West Bengal Section 229 Subsequent plea of
354. (2008) 1 CALLT 297 (HC) guilty accepted.

State of Bombay Section 231 Additional witness for
V. prosecution can be allowed.

Mohamadh Khan Section 231 and Evidence Act
AIR 1960 Bom 150 Section 114 Prosecution

Rohtash Kumar is not bound to examine all listed
V. witnesses.

State of Haryana Section 235(2) Accused upon
(2013) 14 SCC 434 conviction can be sent to jail until
Ram Deo Chauhan
hearing on sentence.
V.
State of Assam Section 235(2) To hear on sentence
(2001) 5 SCC 714 de novo trial not necessary.
Narpal Singh & Others
Section 239 Magistrate need not
V. write order for framing charge but
State of Haryana has to write order for discharge.
AIR 1977 SC 1066
Modilal Kaluram Kachhara And Etc. Section 239 Under Section 482 no
bar to the High Court to consider the
V.
State Of Maharashtra documents produced by accused.
Section 244 Statements of Section
1988 Cri.L.J.
Kanti Bhadra Shah and Anr. 202 are not EBC.

V. Section 245(2) Complaint can be
The State of West Bengal dismissed before charge.

AIR 2000 SC 522

M. Joy Varghese
V.

The State ANU-TN- 0365-2011

Sunil Mehta and Anr.
V.

State of Gujarat and Anr.

2013 (2) Bom CR (Cri) 335
Cricket Association of Bengal & ors

V.
State of West Bengal and ors.

AIR 1971 SC 1971

355. Luis De Piedade Lobo Section 245(2) Opportunity to
356. V. adduce EBC should be given to the
357.
358. Mahadev Vishwanath Parulekar Complaint.

359. 1984 Cri.L.J. 513 Section 248(2) Conviction not bad
360. Gurmukh Singh and Ors. for failure to adopt procedure
361.
362. V. applicable to complaint-warrant case.
363. The State of Punjab
364. (1972) 4 SCC 805

Sagunabai Lahanu Shende Section 249 cannot be invoked after
V. charge.

Patru Goma Lengure and others Section 249 Magistrate is not
1979 Mh.L.J. 18 empowered to restore a complaint.

Narayandas Narayandas Gulabchand

Agrawal

V.

Rakesh Kumar Nem Kumar Porwal

1996 (2) Mh.L.J. 463 Section 251 Adalat Prasad case
IND Synergy Ltd. would not come in way for objection
V.
to jurisdiction.
Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd.

III (2014) BC 433 (Del) Section 251 If the admitted facts do
Jhantu Das not amount to offence accused can
V.
not be convicted.
State of Tripura
(2007) 2 GLR 443

Girraj Prasad Meena Section 252 Plead guilty for lessor
V. offences set aside as informant had
no opportunity to apply for adding
State of Rajasthan and Ors
2013 (12) SCALE 275 charges or accused.

Shri Sandeep Indravadan Sagar Section 252 Rubber stamp used for

V. recording plea of accused Court

State of Maharashtra and others upheld the order.

on 10.01.2013

State of Maharashtra Section 255 Magistrate should issue
V. summons on request of the

Maruti Dadu Kamble prosecution, but can refuse to
1988 Mh.L.J. 49 adjourn if no efforts taken to

Jethalal Girdharlal serve the summons.
V.
Section 255(2) and Prohibition Act
State of Gujarat Section 66(1)(b) Hearing on
(1984) 2 GLR 964
sentence gives accused to show
special reason for less than
minimum punishment.

365. Jethalal Girdharlal Section 255(2) and Section 66(1)(b)
366. V. Magistrat has to hear the accused on
367.
368. State of Gujarat sentence.
369. MANU-GJ-0206-1984
Narayandas Gulabchand Agrawal Section 256 and 249 Bombay says
370. 1996-2- Mh.L.J. 463 Magistrate has no jurisdiction to
restore a dismissed complaint.
371. Om Gayatri and company Section 256 No revision lies
372. V. against order under section.
373.
374. State of Maharashtra Section 256 Court should not insist
375. 2006 Cr.L.J. 601 for presence of particular person
should not dismiss if evidence
Associated Cement Co. Ltd already recorded.
V. Section 256 Magistrate cannot
restore complaint.
Keshvanand
AIR 1998 SC 596 Section 256 Magistrate has no power
Harishchandra @ Sunil Rajara to recall the dismissal order.

Rasker Section 256 Magistrate not
V. empowered to restore dismissed

Kantilal Virchand Vora & another complaint.
1998 Cri.L.J. 3754
Section 256(1) Magistrate has to
Madankumar Dharamchand Jain and dismiss complaint unless decided to
Anr.
V. adjourn for some cause.

State of Maharashtra and Anr. Section 258 After summons only
1983(1) Bom CR 416 Magistrate can close case.

Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya and Anr. Section 259 After discharging from
V. warrant case trying summons case

S.N. Thakur and Anr. under chapter 20 is valid.
AIR 1986 SC 1440
S. Rama Krishna Section 263 and 264 of old Cr.P.C
V. Notes of evidence when need not be
S. Rami Reddy
AIR 2008 SC 2066 retained.

State of Maharashtra
V.

Maruti Dadu Kamble
1988 Mh.L.J. 49

Pramatha Nath Mukherjee
V.

The State of West Bengal
AIR 1960 SC 810
Zafar and others
V.
State of U.P.

1968 AWR (H.C.) 38281

376. Guerrero Lugo Elvia Grissel Section 265A Notification of the
377. V. excluded Acts.
378.
379. The State of Maharashtra Section 265E Court has no discretion
380. 2012 Cri.L.J. 1136 to award sentence other than one-
381. State fourth of the punishment.
382. V.
383. K.N.Nehru Section 267 Formal arrest of the
384. accused in Jail.
385. on 3 November, 2011
Ramesh Kumar Singh Section 267 Non production of
386. prisoners.
V.
State Of Bihar And Ors. Section 267 Procedure of Production
on 17 December, 1986 Warrant.

State of Maharashtra Section 273 Evidence on commission
V. through VC allowed in Criminal
cases.
Yadav Natthuji Kohachade
2000 Cri.L.J. 959 Section 278 Not reding over
deposition but making available for
State of Maharashtra and P.C. Singh
V. his reading was sufficient.

Dr. Praful B. Desai and Anr. Section 279 Evidence's language
AIR 2003 SC 2053 unknown to accused, but known to

The State of Maharashtra advocates.
V.
Section 291A Test Identification
Bhaurao Doma Udan and Others Parade and purpose No provision in
1996 (1) Mh. L.J. 214 Cr.P.C. which obliges investigation
agency to hold identification parade.
Mir Mohd. Omar and Ors. Section 293(1) Not obligatory that
V. the expert on the scientific issue of

State of West Bengal the chemical examination of
AIR 1989 SC 1785 substance, should be made to
depose in proceedings before Court.
The State Of Maharashtra Section 294 Admitted documents can
V.
be read in evidence.
Manik Mohan Gaikwad
on 26 November, 2008
Rajesh Kumar and Anr.

V.
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

(2008) 4 SCC 493
Kodadi Srinivasa Lingam and Ors.

V.
State of A.P.
2001 Cri.L.J. 602 A.P

Guwahati Sub-Divisional Market
Committee
V.

Suresh Sikaria
2013 (4) GLT 486

387. Himachal Pradesh Administration Section 294 application by accused
388. V. shall be considered only statement of
389.
390. Om Prakash Section 313.
391. AIR 1972 SC 975
392. State of Punjab Section 294 Proof without examining
393. the expert.
394. V.
395. Naib Din Section 296 What is formal evidence
396. AIR 2001 SC 3955 which can be taken on affidavit is
397. Constitution Bench Dharam Pal and explained.

Ors. Section 299 and 193 After committal
V. Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to
summon accused named in column
State of Haryana and Anr. no.2.
MANU-SC-0720-2013 Section 299 is applicable when the
accused intentionally makes
Jayendra Vishnu Thakur
V. inaccessable and not merely when it
is shown that it is not possible to
State of Maharahstra and Anr. trace him.
(2009) 7 SCC 104
Section 299 On surrender of accused
Jayendra Vishnu Thakur attachment to be vacated.
V.
Section 299 second part is
State of Maharahstra and Anr. exceptionto Section 33 of Evidence
(2009) 7 SCC 104
Act.
Nirmal Singh
V. Section 299 Unless common
evidence is recorded the evidence
State of Haryana against the tried accused cannot be
AIR 2000 SC 1416 read against absconding accused.
Smt. Urmila Sahu Section 299(1) will be applicable if
any of its conditions are satisfied.
V.
State of Orissa Section 300 Double jeopardy To
1998 Cri.L.J. 1372 operate as a bar the second
Central Bureau of Investigation
prosecution and the consequential
V. punishment thereunder, must
Abu Salem Ansari and Anr. be for 'the same offence.

(2011) 4 SCC 426 Section 300 Double Jeopardy's 3
Monica Bedi requisites.
V.
State of A.P.

(2011) 1 SCC 284
Thomas Dana
V.

The State of Punjab
AIR 1959 SC 375

Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel
V.

State of Gujarat and Anr.
AIR 2012 SC 2844

398. State of Karnataka through CBI Section 300 No Double Jeopardy in
399. V. Dishonor of Cheque case even if

400. C. Nagarajaswamy there was a case under Section 420
401. AIR 2005 SC4308 IPC.
402.
403. Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Section 301 Trial on Sunday without
404. Kasab legal aid was setaside.
405. V.
406. Section 302 Free legal aid should be
407. State of Maharashtra provided from the stage of remand.
AIR 2012 SC 3565
Sitaram Sao Section 306 Pardon is not right
V. Aapplicable without committal 307
State of Jharkhand
AIR 2008 SC 391 applicable after
committal.
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and
Anr. Section 306(1) Pardon is not right
V. Aapplicable without committal 307

State of Maharashtra applicable after committal.
AIR 2000 SC 3352
Section 306(1) Pardon Procedure.
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan
Bariyar Section 306(4) Accused has no right
V. of cross examination of the approver.

State of Maharashtra Section 306(4)(a) Examination of
(2009) 6 SCC 498 approver is mandatory if pardon
tendered before committal but not
State of Himachal Pradesh mandatory if tendered by sessions
V.
court after committal.
Surinder Mohan And Others Section 306(4)(a) Statement of
AIR 2000 SC 1862 approver is not admissibleunder
A. Deivendran
V. Section 33 Evidence Act.
State of T.N.
AIR 1998 SC 2821 Section 306(5) CJM and ACJM and
Asokan L.S. CMM and ACMM have equal
V. jurisdiction.
State of Kerala
2005 Cri.L.J. 3848

The State of Maharashtra
V.

Shanti Prasad Jain
1978 Mh.L.J. 227
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary &

Anr.
V.

State of Maharashtra
AIR 2000 SC 3352

408. Mrinal Das and Ors. Section 307 After committal the
409. approver need not be examined
V.
410. The State of Tripura twice.
411. AIR 2011 SC 3753
412. Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Section 307 is applicable after
committal.
413. Anr.
414. V. Section 307 is invocable at post-
415. commitment while Section 306 is
416. State of Maharashtra invocable at precommitment state.
417. AIR 2000 SC 3352
418. Jasbir Singh Section 307 pardon is by Court NDPS
V. Act Section 64 is by executive Later

Vipin Kumar Jaggi and Ors. overrides.
AIR 2001 SC 2734
Section 309 Common Cause and
P. Ramachandra Rao Rajdeo Sharma Cases are overruled.
V.
Section 309 Criminal Trials Directions
State of Karnataka for day to day trials.
AIR 2002 SC 1856
Section 309 Directions given not to
Thana Singh grant adjournments casually.
V.
Section 309 It is neither permissible
Central Bureau of Narcotics nor possible nor desirable to lay
2013 Cri.L.J. 1262 circulated in down an outer limit of time.

Pune Section 309 Magistrate new spared
from adverse remarks for allowing
Vinod Kumar Advocates misconduct in seeking
V.
adjournment.
State of Punjab dd in 2012 Section 309 Neither permissible nor
Abdul Rehman Antulay etc. etc. possible nor desirable to lay down an

V. outer limit of time.
R.S. Nayak and another etc.
Section 309 On conviction accused to
AIR 1992 SC 1701 be taken into custody pending
N.G. Dastanevs.Shrikant punishment.

V.
S. Shivde and Anr.
AIR 2001 SC 2028
Bipin Shantilal Panchal

V.
State of Gujarat and Anr.

AIR 2001 SC 1158

Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj Nath
V.

State of Assam
AIR 2001 SC 2231
Hussainara Khatoon and Ors.

V.
Home Secretary, State of Bihar,

Patna AIR 1979 SC 1360

419. P. Ramachandra Rao Section 309 Speedy trial is of the
420. V. essence of criminal justice.
421.
422. State of Karnataka Section 309 Time cannot be fixed by
AIR 2002 SC 1856 Supreme Court for conclusion of
423. trials.
424. Mohd. Khalid
V. Section 309 Unnecessary
425. adjournments give a scope for a
426. State of West Bengal grievance that accused persons get a
427. (2002) 7 SCC 334 time to get over the witnesses.
428. State of U.P. Section 309 When witnesses are
429. V.
present and accused causes
Shambhu Nath Singh & Ors. adjournment Court can remand
AIR 2001 SC 1403
accused or direct payment of
Sasi Thomas expenses present.
V.
Section 311 Just decision does not
State and Ors. necessarily mean a decision in favour
(2006) 12 SCC 421
of defence.
Nageshwar Shri Krishna Ghobe
V. Section 311 Parties cannot control
the Court's discretion to have any
State of Maharashtra
AIR 1973 SC 165 additional evidence.

Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan Section 311 Recall of witness
V. allowed.

Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Section 311 The power of the Court
Haveli was plenary to summon or even

2003 Bom CR (Cri) 1103 recall any witness at any stage of the
Rajendra Prasad case.
V.
The Narcotic Cell Section 311 Witness recalled to
depose as they turned hostile
AIR 1999 SC 2292
Iddar and Ors. previously due to threats
V. by the accused.
Aabida and Anr.
Section 313 Accused be informed
AIR 2007 SC 3029 that he can decline to give answers
Laxman alias Laxmayya and his inculpatory statements may

V. be taken into consideration.
The State of Maharashtra Section 313 and PC Act Failure of

2012 Cri.L.J. 2826 accused to offer appropriate
Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel explanation or giving false answer

V. may be counted as providing a
State of Punjab missing link.
2012 Cri.L.J. 4657
Basavaraj R. Patil and Others

V.
State of Karnataka and Others

AIR 2000 SC 3214

430. State of Maharashtra Section 313 Counsel cannot be
431. V. examined.
432.
433. Maruti Dadu Kamble Section 313(1)(b) Accused should be
434. 1988 Mh.L.J. 49 Warned.

435. Re Kannammal @ Maunammal Section 313(1)(b) Advocate cannot
436. 92 Ind. Cas. 695 be examined but questionire for
437. accused can be given.
438. Basavaraj R. Patil and Others
439. V. Section 313(1)(b) Statement is not
440. Evidence.
441. State of Karnataka and Others
AIR 2000 SC 3214 (3JJs) Section 317 Personal exemption
when can be granted.
Satyavir Singh Rathi
V. Section 319 A person discharged can
be arraigned again as accused after
State thr. C.B.I.
AIR 2011 SC 1748 an inquiry as contemplated by
Messers Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Section 300(5) and 398.

V. Section 319 Accused can apply to
Messers Bhiwani Denim and Magistrate.

Apparels Ltd. Section 319 Accused named in FIR
AIR 2001 SC 3625 but excluded police can be
Hardeep Singh etc.
summoned even without cross exam
V. of the witness.
State of Punjab and Ors. etc.
Section 319 Magistrate can proceed
2014 (1) SCALE 241 against an accused whom the
Bholu Ram Magistrate refused to
V. Summon.

State of Punjab and Anr. Section 319 Magistrate can take
2008 Cri.L.J. 4576 SC cognizance against the accused
Rakesh and Anr. named in FIR but omitted in the
V.
State of Haryana charge sheet.
AIR 2001 SC 2521 Section 319 Magistrate cannot issue
Dr. S.S. Khanna
V. process to FIR named but
chargesheet unnamed accused at
Chief Secretary, Patna and Anr.
AIR 1983 SC 595 committal stage.
Uma Shankar Section 319 Purpose of this power is
V.
Explained.
State of Bihar and Anr.
(2010) 9 SCC 479

Kishori Singh and Ors.
V.

State of Bihar and Anr.
AIR 2000 SC 3725
Rajendra Singh
V.

State of U.P. and Anr.
AIR 2007 SC 2786

442. FB Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Section 320 At any stage
443. V. permissible.
444.
445. The State of Maharashtra Section 320 Non-compoundable case
2008 2 Mh.L.J. 856 unfit for mediation & conciliation.
446.
447. Rajesh Rajesh Kannan Section 320 Offence of S.324 IPC
448. V. prior to amendment is
449. compoundable.
450. A.K. Murthy and Ors.
451. 2009-2-UC 879 Section 320 Partly compounding is
452. not permissible.
Hirabhai Jhaverbhai
V. Section 320 Partly compounding was
maintained without discussion on
State of Gujarat and Ors. validity.
AIR 2010 SC 2321
Section 320 Referring to Larger
Rameshchandra J. Thakkar Bench as Section 420 IPC is
V.
compoundable and Section 120B is
Assandas Parmanand Jhaveri, State non compoundable.
of Maharashtra
AIR1973SC84 Section 320 Under Section 482 non-
compoundable offence's FIR can be
Rajinder Singh
V. quashed.

State (Delhi Administration) Section 321 Grounds for seeking
AIR 1980 SC 1200 Courts consent for withdrawal.
Gian Singh
V. Section 323 Sessions Judge has
power to try any offence Cross cases
State of Punjab and Anr.
(2010) 15 SCC 118 should be tried by him.

Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Section 325 Magistrate has to write
V. an order but not judgment.

The State of Maharashtra Section 325 When Magistrate cannot
2008 2 Mh.L.J. 856 exceed the limit of Section 29 for
Sheonandan Paswan want of special provision he has to
V. resort to Section 325 and not 323.

State of Bihar and Ors.
AIR 1987 SC 877

Sudhir and ors. etc.
V.

State of M.P. etc.
AIR 2001 SC 826

Khoda Bux Mal
V.

Ohadali Mal
AIR 1949 Cal 308
Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate

V.
State of A.P.
2005 Cri.L.J. 1168 DB

453. Rajagopal Section 325(1) Magistrate has to
454. V. record finding of guity and CJM
455.
456. Forest Range Officer cannot send back case.
457. 2012 (1) CTC 639
Nagesh Section 325(1) Magistrate to record
458. V. finding and then refer to CJM.
459. State of Karnataka
460. 1990 Cri.L.J. 2234 Section 326 and Section 138 N.I. Act
461. Jaikishan Kanjiwani Evidence and not substance of
V. evidence is recorded.
462.
463. Kumar Matching Centre Section 326 and N.I. Act Section 138
2011 Cri.L.J. 134 Evidence on affidavit followed by
cross. De novo not required.
Ramilaben Trikamlal ShahTube and Section 326 Denovo Trial In an
Allied Products and others
extremely serious case of exceptional
Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali nature it would occasion in failure of
2012 Cri.L.J. 4537 justice if Prosecution is not taken to

Ranbir Yadav logical conclusion.
V. Section 326 Discretion given to court

State of Bihar to read previous evidence.
AIR 1995 SC 1219
Pratibha Pandurang Salvi Section 326 Once the Magistrate
used the discretion to try summarily,
V. on his transfer it should be de novo.
State of Maharashtra
Section 326(3) and NI Act Section
2010 Cri.L.J. 730 138 and 142. If the evidence was not
J.V. Baharuni recorded summarily but fully then no
V.
need of de novo.
State of Gujarat Section 326(3) and Section 138 NI
(2014) 10 SCC 494
Act Pursis of accused would not
Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah and make legal to read evidence
Anr.
V. recorded by previous Magistrate.

Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal & Anr. Section 326(3) De novo Trial not
AIR 2011 SC 3076 necessary.

Shyambahadur Purshottam Sharma Section 326(3) No need of denovo
V. trial.

Shri. Sudhakar Narshu Poojary
MANU-MH-1393-2013
K. Jayachandran
V.
O. Nargeese and Anr.
1987 Cri.L.J. 1997

464. Abdul Sukkur Barbhuiya Section 326(3) Sessions Court to
465. V. record evidence de novo.
466.
467. The State of Assam and others, Section 327 In camera proceeding
Gauhati HC Directions.
468.
469. Dated 24.01.2012 Section 327 In camera trial and not
470. State of Punjab to disclose the name of the victim.
471. V.
472. Section 334 Acquittal case Course to
Gurmit Singh and Others be adopted while acquitting on
473. AIR 1996 SC 1393 insanity ground.
474. Sakshi
V. Section 338 and IPC Section 84
Accused was acquitted and released
Union of India and Ors.
AIR 2004 SC 3566 under section 338 of Cr.P.C.

The State of Maharashtra Section 342 (3) Answers given by
V. accused may be taken into
consideration at enquiry or
Subhashsing Trial.
Shalikramsingh Raghuwanshi
Section 342 Compensation to the
1995 (1) Mh.L.J. 358 victim.
Ms. Leena Balkrishna Nair
Section 345 Contempt of Court by
V. police officer.
The State of Maharashtra
Section 349 and 91 Notice should be
2010 Cri.L.J. 3392 issued before taking action.
State of Maharashtra
Section 353 Court is competent to
V. direct departmental action aginst
Sukhdeo Singh and another
erring officers.
AIR 1992 SC 2100
Section 353 Judgment pronounced in
D.K. Basu absence of accused was upheld as he
V.
was present during the trial.
State of West Bengal
AIR 1997 SC 610
Arun Paswan, S.I.
V.

State of Bihar and Ors.
JT 2003 (10) SC 459

The Superintendent of Police
V.

The Judicial Magistrate Court,
Cheyyar

IV (2015) CCR 502 (Mad.)

Dayal Singh and Ors.
V.

State of Uttaranchal
AIR 2012 SC 3046

Satya Narain
V.

State of Rajasthan
1987 WLN (UC) Raj 458

475. A.T. Prakashan Section 353 Misquoting of the
476. V. Section or misapplying the provisions
477.
478. The Excise Inspector and Anr. has caused no prejudice Hence
2014 ALL.M.R. (Cri) 1945 conviction maintained.
479. State of Gujarat
480. V. Section 354 Acquittal case A finding
481. Kishanbhai needs to be recorded in each
482.
483. Supreme (2014) 5 SCC 108 acquittal case whether the lapse was
484. Complainant Ganesha innocent or blameworthy.
485. V.
Sharanappa and anr. Section 354 and 154 The person who
AIR 2014 SC 1198 lodges the FIR be called the
Informant.
Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph
V. Section 354 (3) Court has to
discharge its constitutional
State of Maharashtra obligations and honour legislative
(2014) 4 SCC 69 policy by awarding appropriate
sentence, that is will of people.
R. Vijayan Section 357 Compensation in Section
V. 138 N.I. Act cases should include

Baby and Anr. costs and loss.
AIR 2012 SC 528
Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Section 357 Every Courts Mandatory
duty to consider compensation.
V.
State of Maharashtra Section 357 State to compensation in
Section 304A IPC where accused is
AIR 2013 SC 2454 unable to pay.
Ram Pal
V. Cr.P.C. S.357(3) (Simple)
Imprisonment in
T.S. Thakur and Adarsh Kumar Goes
JT 2015 (2) SC 496 default of compensation was justified
R. Mohan
V. Section 357(3) Compensation to be
A.K. Vijaya Kumar less than recoverable in civil court.
2012 CriLJ3953
Dilip S. Dhanukar Section 357(3) Default sentence of
V. compensation is legal.

Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and Anr. Section 360 not applicable to
MANU-SC-8289-2007 Maharashtra Probation not available
K.A. Abbas H.S.A.
V. for Section 326 IPC.
Sabu Joseph and Anr.
(2010) 6 SCC 230

Sunil alias Pona Tolaram Pore
(Varma)
V.

State of Maharashtra

486. Chandreshwar Sharma Section 361 Court shall give reasons
487. V. for denial of benefit of probation.
488.
489. State of Bihar Section 361 Mandatory to give
490. (2000) 9 SCC 245 reasons.
491. Eliamma and Anr.
492. Section 361 Sentence would depend
493. V. on many factors.
State of Karnataka
494. (2009) 11 SCC 42 Section 361 Special Reasons to be
495. given for not granting probation HC
496. State of Punjab
V. increased fine to one lakh.

Prem Sagar and Ors. Section 362 High Court has no power
2008 Cri.L.J. 3533 under Section 482 to review.

Rupam Pralhad Bhartiya Section 362 Magistrate can drop
V. proceeding against against whom

State of Maharashtra and Anr. process was issued by mistake.
MANU-MH-1005-2011
State of Punjab Section 366 propositions to be kept
V. in mind for determination of question

Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Ors of death sentence.
Minu Kumari and Anr.
V. Section 374 and 9 Additional
Sessions Judge can hear an appeal
The State of Bihar and Ors.
AIR 2006 SC 1937 from Assistant Sessions Judge if
Mohd. Chaman punishment was less than 7
V. Years.

State (N.C.T. of Delhi) Section 374 Appeallate Court duties.
2001 Cri.L.J. 725
Section 374 Right of appeal against
Re The Additional District Judge- conviction cannot be curtailed But
cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, appellate court can impose condition

Nagapattinam 2003-1-LW (Crl) 77 for suspending sentence.
Section 374(2) Appeal lies to
State of MP Sessions Court and not HC.
V.

Bacchudas alias Balram and Ors
AIR 2007 SC 1236
Dilip S. Dhanukar
V.

Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and Anr.
MANU-SC-8289-2007

Messers Pioneer Castings and
another
V.

Employees State Insurance
Corporation

497. Sudhir Niranjan Chakre Section 374(4) and 2(wa) and
498. V. 407(1)(c)(iv)_ Victim can appeal to

499. Rajesh Ramdas Wankhade Sessions Court and State to High
500. 2014 ALL.M.R. (Cri) 4624 Court against acquittal Parties can
501.
502. The State of Maharashtra pray high court to transfer.
503. V. Section 378 Against acquittal appeal
504. lies to sessions court in state case to
505. Hanmant Prabhakar Waidande and
Ors. high court in complaint case.
506.
507. MANU-MH- 0868-2006 Section 378 Limitation is 90 days for
State (Delhi Administration) Appeal by complainant to HC against

V. acquittal in Food Act case.
Dharampal
AIR 2001 SC 2924 Section 381 Assistant and Additional
Sessions Judges exercise jurisdiction
Emperor
V. of Sessions Court.

Lakshman Chavji Narangikar Section 384 to 386 Appeal once
AIR 1931 Bom 313 admitted - has to be decided on
K.S. Panduranga merits even in absence of accused.
V.
State of Karnataka Section 389 Appellate Court shall
AIR 2013 SC 2164 consider nature of allegations etc for
Kishori Lal
V. granting bail.
Rupa and Ors.
(2004) 7 SCC 638 Section 389 High court recalled its
State of Punjab order.
V.
Deepak Mattu Section 389(1) Appellate Court shall
AIR 2008 SC 35 consider nature of allegations etc for
Kishori Lal
V. granting bail.
Rupa and Ors.
(2004) 7 SCC 638 Section 389(3) is applicable only
when there is right to appeal.
Mayuram Subramanian
Srinivasan Section 394 Old Section 431 When
V. appellant has died Appeal against
C.B.I.
fine only can be allowed to be
AIR 2006 SC 2449 continued but not against
Bondada Gajapathy Rao imprisonment.

V. Section 397 against order refusing
State of Andhra Pradesh Section 156 directing for inquiry
Accused to be impleaded.
AIR 1964 SC 1645

Raghu Raj Singh Rousha
V.

Shivam Sundaram Promoters
(2009) 2 SCC 363

508. Hasmukh J. Jhaveri Section 397 and 146 Not
509. V. interlocutory.
510.
511. Shella Dadlani and Another Section 397 and 156(3) Interference
512. 1981 Cri.L.J. 958 with order under Section 156(3)
513.
Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane should normally be confined to cases
514. V. in which there are some
515.
516. Chandrasen Jagdevrao Deshmukh very exceptional circumstances.
517. 2008 Cri.L.J. 3761 Section 397 Distinction between
518.
State of Kerala Appeal and Revision.
V.
Section 397 Evidence Act Section 27
K.M. Charia Abdullah and Co. misinterpreted by appellate Court
AIR 1965 SC 1585 Rehearing ordered.

K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Section 397 Interlocutory order test
V. Explained.

State of Andhra Pradesh Section 397 Jurisdiction not to be
AIR 1962 SC 1788 lightly exercised when invoked by a
Madhu Limaye private complainant against an order
V.
of acquittal against which the
The State of Maharashtra Government has a right of
AIR 1978 SC 47 appeal under section.
D. Stephens Section 397 Order which
V.
Nosibolla substantially affects the right of the
AIR 1951 SC 196 accused, or decides certain rights of
the parties cannot be said to be an
Mohit alias Sonu and Anr.
V. interlocutory order.
Section 397 Petition under section
State of U.P. and Anr.
MANU-SC-0633-2013 482 converted to revision.

Raj Kapoor and Ors. Section 397 Revision against interim
V. maintenace tenable.

State and Ors. Section 397 Revision against order
AIR 1980 SC 258 directing complainant to remain
Mr. Joaquim Anthony D'Souza
present for verification is not tenable
V.
Mrs. Milinda Rosy D'Souza Section 397 Revision order setting
aside acquittal and retrial direction
Yogesh upheld- I.O. findings not evidence.
V.

The State of Maharashtra
2015 (1) Bom CR (Cri) 750

Kaptan Singh and others
V.

State of M.P. and another
AIR 1997 SC 2485

519. K.K. Patel and Anr. Section 397 Test whether
520. V. interlocutory or not.
521.
522. State of Gujarat and Anr. Section 397 What is interim order is
523. AIR 2000 SC 3346 Explained.
524. Madhu Limaye
525. V. Section 401 Scope of revision
526. explained.
527. The State of Maharashtra
528. AIR 1978 SC 47 Section 409(2) Sessions Judge has
power to transfer partheard sessions
529. Kaptan Singh and others
V. case without hearing.
Section 413 Surety is not
State of M.P. and another automatically discharged.
AIR 1997 SC 2485
Section 417 Criminal Appellate Court
Re. District and Sessions Judge When can interefere.
Raisen
Section 423(1) High Court set aside
2005 (3) MP.L.J. 26 acquittal by sessions. It can exceed
original sentence Appellate Courts
Mr. Parkar Hasan Abdul Gafoor
V. Power of punishment.
Section 427 Concurrent plea has
State of Maharashtra & others been rejected as offences were
1999 (5) Bom CR 481
Dhanapal different.
V.
Section 427 Cr.P.C. Undergoing
State by Public Prosecutor sentence means explained.
2009 Cri.L.J. 4647
Section 427 Different cheques of
Shankar Kerba Jadhav and Ors. same transaction with common
V. notice can be trial at one trial.

The State of Maharashtra Section 427 Four cases of Section
AIR 1971 SC 840 138 NI Act consecutive sentence

M.R. Kudva Appellant justified.
V.

State Of Andhra Pradesh
2007 (1) Crimes 50 (SC)
Sadashiv Chhokha Sable

V.
State Of Maharashtra

1993 Cri.L.J. 1469
Bapurao Trimbakrao Sonawane

V.
The State of Maharashtra and The

Superintendent of Police
2009 (111) BOM L.R. 1271

Rajendra B. Choudhari
V.

State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2007 Cri.L.J. 844