Está en la página 1de 2

Case Laws Under Crpc


The Supreme Court of India, in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of UP on 12 November, 2013
held that ‘the police must compulsorily register the FIR on receiving a complaint if the
information discloses a cognizable offence, and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such
a situation’.

The police cannot refuse to register the case on the ground that it is either not reliable or
credible (Smt. Gurmito vs. State of Punjab And Ors). Further, refusal to record FIR on the
ground that the place of crime does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the police
station, amount to dereliction of duty. Information about cognizable offence would have to be
recorded and forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction (State of Andhra Pradesh
vs. Punati Ramulu And Others).

It is the duty of the officer-in-charge of the police station to register an FIR when
investigation under section 156(3) of CrPC is directed by the Magistrate, even when the
Magistrate explicitly does not say so (Mohd. Yoysuf vs. Afaq Jahan).


Kunhumuhammed v. State of Kerala the court held that the report of a police officer
following an investigation contrary to S. 155(2)[3] could be treated as complaint under S.
2(d) and S. 190(1)(a). It is necessary that at the commencement of the investigation the police
officer is led to believe that the case involved the commission of a cognizable offence or has
a doubt about the same and investigation establishes only commission of a non- cognizable

Ordinarily a private citizen intending to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of an offence

has two courses open to him. He may lodge an FIR before the police if the offence is
cognizable one; or he may lodge a complaint before a competent judicial magistrate
irrespective of whether the offence is cognizable or non-cognizable.

In Chinnaswami v. Kuppuswami, it was observed that the object of the Code is to ensure
the freedom and safety of the subject in that it gives him the right to come to court provided
he considers that a wrong has been done to the Republic or him and be a check upon police

Arrest S41-S60

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal

Where the rights of a person are defined under this case

Complaints to a Magistrate

The Supreme Court has held that if the bare perusal of a complaint or the evidence shows that
the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are absent, or that the dispute is only of a civil
nature, or that there are such patent absurdities in evidence that it would be a waste of time to
proceed further, the complaint would properly be dismissed. (Debendranath,—A.I.R. 1972
S.C. 1607)

In one case of murder, the complainant had come with a list of nine witnesses. However, only
six witnesses were examined. It was held that the omission to make a statement or give in
writing that the complainant did not propose to examine the other three witnesses would not
vitiate the order for summoning the accused persons.

In such a case, it can be presumed that the complainant examined only six witnesses who he
would have been entitled to examine in the Sessions Court. When the case is heard by the
Sessions Court, the complainant cannot be permitted to examine these three witnesses. (Leela
Dhar v. State of U.P., 1991 Cr. L.J. 2857

The Nagpur High Court has held that a Magistrate is entitled to use his power under this
section when he considers that there is grave and gross exaggeration. It is in the interest of
justice that complaints should not be entertained when allegations considered to be utterly
false and liable to lead to perjury are made, which may ruin the prosecution case, even as
regards those parts of the complaint which may be reasonably true. (Narayan,—A.I.R. 1949
Nag. 318)

The Madras High Court has ruled that where according to the muchilika, the complainant was
to appear in Court at 10 a.m. but he appeared at 11 a.m., which was the appointed hour for the
sitting of the Court, the dismissal of the complaint was not justified. (Thanikachala,—A.I.R.
1947 Mad. 389)

If the Magistrate dismisses the complaint under S. 203, he must record his reasons for doing
so, for, if he does not, it would not be possible for the High Court to consider whether the
Magistrate has properly exercised his discretion. Failure to record the reasons, therefore, is
not a mere irregularity, but amounts to a direct disobedience of the law by the Magistrate.