Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary Introduction In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses. The Government o
This writ petition was filed by the petitioner in this Court for an order to the officer in charge to take appropriate steps after registering an FIR.
The issue arose after a written report submitted by the petitioner before the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station refused to register the FIR.
Thereafter when the petitioner moved to the Superintendent of Police, although an FIR was registered no steps were taken either for apprehending the accused or recovery of the minor girl child who had been kidnapped.
After taking note of the prevalence of these issues on a large scale nationwide, the judges made an order.
The Court Order of May 2008
Through this order, the Court gave notice to the Government of all States and UTs besides their Director of Police/Commissioner of Police that if the FIRs were not registered immediately and a copy was not made thereof:-
A complaint can be made to the concerned magistrate who by an order will give a direction to the officer-in-charge to register the FIR and provide a copy, within 24 hours of such order.
The magistrate can take contempt proceedings and departmental proceedings if the officer-in-charge doesn't follow the order without showing sufficient cause.
Three weeks have been given to file a response of notice.
Issued a show cause notice to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and U. T and DGP as to why such notice was not to be issued to them.
Court Order of July 2008
The Court after observing non-fulfillment of its earlier order of May 2008, granted two more weeks as a last chance to file a response.
Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P, 2013
The issue was framed by this Court to be heard by a Constitutional Bench after this Court in Lalita Kumari, 2012 case found divergent opinions regarding the immediate registration of FIR by an Officer-in-charge or a preliminary inquiry before registration.
Issue
Whether a police officer is bound to register an FIR upon receiving any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offense under S.154 CrPC or the police officer has the power to conduct a preliminary inquiry to check the veracity of such information before registration.
Observations-
The Court stated some of the advantages of registering the FIR:-
(a) It is the first step to 'access justice' for a victim
(b) It upholds the rule of law.
(c) It facilitates the swift investigation.
(d) Leads to lesser manipulation when it is not delayed.
The demand by police officers to bring a complaint in writing is wrong conduct, which delays the time for investigation and apprehension of criminals.
The registration of an FIR doesn't lead to compulsory arrest of an accused person, both are two different things.
If, after investigation, the Court finds the given formation to be false, a complainant can be prosecuted for registering a false F.I.R.
Section 151 gives power to the Police officer to arrest a person before the commission of a cognizable Offence, to prevent the commission of the offense, such preventive arrest is valid for 24 hours only.
Decisions/Orders-
Registration of the FIR is mandatory if the given information to the police discloses the commission of a cognizable Offence.
If the information doesn't disclose any cognizable offense, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether the offense is cognizable or not.
If the preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of such closure with reason should be given to the complainant within 7 days.
Action must be taken against such police officer who refuses to register an FIR of a cognizable offense
The preliminary inquiry is not conducted to verify the veracity of information but to find the cognizable offense.
Before registering FIR, the Court provided for a compulsory preliminary inquiry in some offenses (not exhaustive). These are:-
Matrimonial dispute or Family Dispute.
Commercial Offence.
Medical Negligence.
Corruption Cases.
Cases where abnormal delay in initiating Criminal prosecution like over three months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactory reason.
Preliminary inquiry should not exceed 7 days. Causes of delay must be reflected in the General Diary.
All information relating to cognizable offenses must be reflected in the General Diary or Station Diary.
Lalita Kumari v. Govt of U.P, 2014
In this case, the Court modified its earlier order in the 2013 case and said that the preliminary inquiry can be exceed 7 days, but it should not exceed 15 days generally except in exceptional cases where it provided 6 weeks more by giving adequate reasons and the fact of delay must be written in diary.
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary Introduction This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway. For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme, and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme, Earlier the sharehol
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Comments
Post a Comment