Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
CrPC
CrPC Case list
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| 1. State of bihar v kapil singh – | fair search and seizure |
| 2. State of mah v pk patak | sc interpreted liberally on the ‘procedure’ |
| 3. Jamuna Prasad v empire | illegal warrant and effects of irregular procedure by executing authority |
| 4. Sundar singh v state of up | reciprocal arrangements |
| 5. Bharat kishore v judhirseir | under s 200 issue process upon the basis of examination of complainant on both but not otherwise |
| 6. State of wb v bijoy kumar bose | the object of examination is to see that the public is not unnecessarily harassed by false complaints. The procedure comes into play after magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence. |
| 7. Kallu v shahid ali | a protest petition against the final report submitted by the police can be treated as the complainant under S 200 |
| 8. National small industries corp ltd. state nct of delhi | co. becomes de jure complainant and its employer or other representative representing it in the criminal proceedings becomes the de facto complainant. |
| 9. Pratibha rani v suraj kumar | when civil remedy is available criminal case is not barred and each case has to be decided on the basis of particular facts. |
| 10. P.vasant kumar v. the commissioner of police and others | it wasn’t just and proper for petitioner to straight away approach for issuance of writ of mandamus and direct concerned SHO to register FIR and investigate the matter. |
| 11. P.Lakshmi Narayana v Narayana Reddy | the object of inquiry under s 202 – is the ascertainment of the fact whether the complaint lodged before magistrate has any valid foundation calling for the issuance of process. Section is to prevent harassment through indiscriminate issue of process. |
| 12. Abdul Jahangir v state of Orissa | whether mag. at pre-cognizable stage order for investigation under S 156(3). He is not bound to record the statement of the complainant. |
| 13. Prem Ku. V Nehar Singh | inquiry under s202 is limited only to ascertainment a true of falsehood of allegation in a complaint. |
| 14. Hairam v satish pande | the m. is entitled to rely upon materials i.e. the complaint itself and the statement of complainant an oath, statements, examined at instance of the complainant, results of inquiry or investigation if any conducted under s 202 or the materials collected. |
| 15. Anil ku. Shah v nagendra singh | where police carry out the investigation under the order of mag. it has power of search and seizure. |
| 16. Damodar Sharma v state | validity of summoning – the mag. is bound to follow the procedure laid down under s 202 and report the statements of the prosecution witness and on non-cognizance of provisions of S 202 the said order if summoning the accused amounts to illegality. |
| 17. Rakesh singhv state of bihar | the delay in compulsion of inquiry under s 202 wouldn’t offend art 21 of consti in respect of offence triable by a court of session. |
| 18. RG Rula v state of Bombay | the word sufficient ‘ground’ under s 203 doesn’t mean sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction. |
| 19. Yasim v sajid hussain | the m. dismissed the co. accepting the final report and rejected the protest petition, subs. petition of complainant not barred as the rejection of the first complaint doesn’t amount to an order of dismissal under S 203. (bcoz it is pre cognizant stage) |
| 20. Pushparaj v Subanna/Subaram | the dismissal of complaint of police torture, by considering minute things in the statement of witness is not proper. |
| 21. A Joseph v Reve. Dr. Joseph Kollamparambil and others | the magistrate has been given an unfetterable discretion in a matter to decide whether the complaint to be proceeded or is to be dismissed under s 203. |
| 22. Charan singh v shri mati shanty devi | the session judge cannot set aside the order of dismissal of the complaint on the ground that judicial mag. is not empowered to discharge the accused in a sessions triable case. |
| 23. Pandarinath sokharn tubey v surekha pandarinath tubey | the proceeding under s 125 are in nature of civil proceedings, there are governed by crpc – they are really of civil nature but dealt with summarily in a criminal court. For the purpose of speedy disposal on the ground of conveyance and social order. |
| 24. S.K.Alauddin v khadiza bibi | the criminal process is applied for the purpose of surrounding and speedy disposal of such matter in the interest of society. Petition under 125 is not a complaint and the opposite party is not an accused. |
| 25. Smt kamla devi v meghna singh | held magistrate can order restoration on sufficient cause for proceeding under S 125 crpc. |
| 26. Ranjit kaur v pavitar singh | statutory rts. Of wife to maintenance cannot be negative by the husband through an agreement. Such an agreement in addition to it being against public policy could also be against clear intention of provisions of law. |
| 27. Mehboob ali v adbul Rashid | right of minor child of divorced muslim woman – has absolute tight to claim maintenance from her father and it is not affected by the Act of 1986. |
| 28. Nanakchand v chandraskishore agarwal | sec 4(b) HAMA doesn’t repeal or effect sec 125. Husband filed RCR against wife. Court gives order in favour of Husband. Even though court has given order for RCR, interim maintenance irrespective of another thing can be provided under Sec 125. |
| 29. Madhav pradhan v ketki | the term wife means a legally wedded wife doesn’t include a wife whose marriage is void. |
| 30. Zeenat v zulfikar ali | decree passed in a petition for RCR in the favour if husband is not sufficient to deny maintenance under 125. |
| 31. Devi v arun kumar | Iind wife whose marriage is void is not entitled to maintenance between children of such marriage are entitled to maintenance. |
| 32. Vijay manohar arbat v kasi rao raja ram | the moral obligation of a son or daughter to maintain his/her parents and its also their duty to look their parents. |
| 33. Muduachettiar v Vesshangam | when a person has been absent from India, and avoided arrest by absconding the period lapsed on such circumstance shall be excluded while concluding the limitation. |
| 34. Emperor v raja nazir ahmad | the PC held that function of judiciary and police are complementary and not overlapping. The police to exercise its own functions and subject to right of the court intervened in appropriate situations. |
| 35. S.N. Sharma v Vipin Ku | SC held in appropriate cases the aggrieved person can always seek a remedy by invoking Art 226. The HC shall issue mandamus or habeas corpus accordingly for the power of investigation has been exercised by PO malafidely. |
| 36. Lakshmi narayana v state | It was held that there is nothing wrong in principle if an officer of excise department decided to conduct prosecution before magistrate if he had investigated a particular case, it is improper to conduct the prosecution. |
| 37. State of A.P. v P.V. pavitran | 1984 – FIR 1987 – final report registered. Inordinate delay in investigation by itself is not sufficient to seek quashing of FIR. |
| 38. S.P. CBI and ors. v. Tapan | a general diary entry that discusses a cognizable offence can be treated as FIR. |
| 39. Inspector of Poilce, vigilance and anti-corruption TN v. Jaya pal | PO is an informant himself not a disqualifier to conduct investigation. |
| 40. State of rajasthan v teja singh n ors. | SC held that law says that FIR should reach the Magistrate without an undue delay. |
| 41. State of Haryana n ors. v. C.H. bajan lal n ors. | in competency of the PO to carry an investigation extends only to quashing the investigation and not FIR. |
| 42. State of MP v Mubarak Ali | investigation means PO proceeds to spot, arrests suspects, ascertain facts n circumstances by examination of persons and reducing statements into writing and may search n seize incriminating things under S 165. Procedure has been lain down S 167 to 173. |
| 43. Kehar singh v delhi admin | a witness gave successive statements under S 161 after 25 days. It was held that a subsequent improved statement after 25 days was of no value. |
| 44. Rishbud inder signh vs state of delhi | explained investigation as – i. Examination of various persons ii. Recording of statements in writing iii. Search or seizure there upon formation of opinion, whether evidence so collected, responsibility of the suspect is proved. |
| 45. Ajay Sharma v state of rajasthan | where chargesheet was within prescribed period of 90 days the accused was not entitled for statutory bail on the grounds that cognizance could not be taken within stipulated period. S 167 |
| 46. Krishnaswamy v inspector of police | held that even though chargesheet is filed after expiry of statutory period, if the accused is not released on bail under S 167(2), the magistrate after submission of chargesheet may pass an order of remand under S 309(2) of crpc. |
| 47. Kehar singh v delhi admin | magistrate should explain to the accused that i. He is not bound to make a confession ii. It may be used against him iii. Accused after having understood this, the magistrate will record. |
| 48. A.R. Sheck v Delhi Admin | court held that if accused’s signature is not obtained on his confession, it would vitiate the confession. For judicial remand, formal application is not required. Judicial custody – ‘custodian legis’. |
| 49. Chagnati satyanaranan v state of AP | 90 or 60 says shall be reckoned from the date of his production before magistrates.24 hrs. detention in police custody has to be excluded. |
| 50. Gain Singh v State | the accused may be interrogated in judicial custody also. |
| 51. Such singh v state | when an accused person is in judicial remand, the police wants him in its custody in connection with investigation of another case, the court may allow police record. |
| 52. Abhimandan jha v dinesh misra | magistrate himself takes cognizance – such final report and direct the PO to produce whatever evidence he has so far collected. Then the magistrate shall proceed with the trial. |
| 53. Modi gangav v state of orissa | magistrate who records the confession should prove it the trial. |
| 54. Nearpal singh v state of Haryana | SC held that scope of inquest witness is limited to injuries only and doesn’t extend to the factum of occurrence |
| 55. Ismat Saara v State | magistrate before taking cognizance shall call report from police if it is pending, shall take cognizance if police submits final report the magistrate shall try the case and S 210 to be followed accordingly. |
| 56. Basit ali v state | scope of the inquest/investigation is limited to injuries only, the details as to how deceased assaulted and who murdered him were beyond the scope of S 174. |
| 57. Gill v king | the PC explained the circumstances when protection would be available under S 197. |
| 58. Narbahardu bhandari v state of Sikkim | former CM of Sikkim – corruption charges, during investigation, state withdrew sanction. |
| 59. Madhya Pradesh special police establishment v state of MP | defamation complaint has to be by Public Prosecutor in such cases. |
| 60. Trisum Chemical industries v rajesh agarwal | Jurisdiction becomes relevant only in question of inquiry/trial cases. It is fallacious that only m. having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the offence. After cognizance, may have to decide as to the Court which has jurisdiction to enquire or try. |
| 61. State of UP v paras nath singh | sec 197 doesn’t extend its protective cover to every act or omission done by a public servant in service, but restricts in scope of operation to any of those act/omissions which are done by public servant in their official duty. |
| 62. Prakash singh v state of Punjab | question relating to sanction under S 197 is not necessarily considered as soon as the complaint is lodged. Question may arise at any stage of the proceedings. The question whether sanction is necessary or not may have to determined from stage to stage. |
| 63. Ramesh laal jain v nagendra singh rana | sanction required under sec 197 and sanction required under POC 1988 stand on different footing. Sanction in terms of Crpc is required to be granted by the state. Under section 1988 act it can be granted also by the authorities specified under Sec 19. |
| 64. HDFC bank ltd. v J.J Mamman | the proceedings for framing charge shall be conducted in the presence of the accused in case of his presence has been dispensed, within the presence of his Counsel. Framing of charge in the absence of accused would defeat the very purpose of the sec. |
| 65. HK Shivanna v State of Karnataka | provisions under S 211(4) makes it clear that law and the section of law against which the offences is said to have been committed shall be mentioned in the charge. |
| 66. Ramakrishna v Sawak Ram Redkar | in a criminal trial the charge is the foundation of the accusation and every case must be taken, to see that it is not only properly same, but evidence is only tendered with respect to the matter put in the charge. |
| 67. Babulala sao v state of bihar | In the presence of accused all witnesses have referred the date of occurrence of commission different from the date mentioned in the charge. It cannot be said that for mentioning a wrong date in the charge, the appellant was misled in any way. |
| 68. Hiralal v state | a person charged and acquitted under S 304 B IPC can be convicted under S 498 A without that charge there. |
| 69. B. Ballappa v state of AP | As the charge contains all material particulars like place of offence, name of accused and the manner in which offence was committed, it was held that mere mistake about date of occurrence cannot prejudice the accused. |
| 70. Sabbi mallaesu v state of AP | the power of court to alter change is undisputed, but it is the obligation on the Court to bring the same to the notice of the accused and explain it to him/her, otherwise requirement under 216(2) shall remain unfulfilled. |
| 71. Ravi v state of rajasthan | sec 216-226 prescribes the procedure which is to be followed by Trial Court after addition or alteration of the charge. Provision of S 216 enjoins the court with all comprehensive powers of remedying defects. |
| 72. State of Punjab v syal | different people have alleged to have been defrauded by the Resp. and Co. therefore each offence is a distinctive offence and can’t be recorded as constituting single series of act. |
| 73. Muzhair Hussain v state of UP | 2 cheques were issued with a gap of 2 months and they were dishonoured also in the same year. And hence there is no legal bar on joint trial of the case in respect of both these dishonored cheques, by means of single complaint. |
| 74. State of AP v cheemapali ganeshwar rao | S 220 (3) and (4) are enabling provisions and can have no over-riding effect but it would be open to the Court to resort to these provisions even in case of joint trial admissible under S 223. |
| 75. Paramwir Singh v state of Punjab | in this case the accused invoked the challans were challenged together and both the challans were ordered to be consolidated so that there can be tried in one trial. There is no illegality in framing the charge and applying both the challans together. |
| 76. Bijoy chand v state of WB | on fact of the case it was open to the session judge to charge the accused alternatively under S 307 and 326 IPC. It was held that the case falls under S 221. |
| 77. K prema S rao v Y. Srivastva Rao | mere omission or defect in framing charge doesn’t disable the criminal court from convicting the accused for the offence which is found to have been proved from the evidence on record Court has ample provisions to meet situation like this. |
| 78. Suman sood v state of rajasthan | well settled that if accused is charged higher offence and on evidence produce the Court finds that the accused has not committed that offence but is equally satisfied that he has committed lesser offence then court can convict for lesser offence. |
| 79. Ayodhya singh v state of rajasthan | circumstance of the case showed that the accused jointly committed the offences for which they were charged, in the course of same transaction it was held that the two accused could consequently be charged and tried together. |
| 80. Vidhyadharan v state of kerala | word trial not defined in the code, but clearly distinguishable from inquiry. Inquiry must always be forerunner to trial. |
| 81. Union of india v major genera madanlal yadav | tiral means act of proving and judicial exam or determination of issues including its own jurisdiction or authority in accordance with law or adjudication guilt or innocence of the accused including all steps necessary therefore. |
| 82. Charan singh v shanty devi | the provisions of the law under S 227 OF CRPC is to save the accused from prolonged harassment. |
| 83. Union of india v Praful ku samma | 1.If a prima facie case against the accused or not 2.If there is any grave suspicion against the accused.3.Test to determine the prima facie case will depend on facts of each case. 4.Total effect of the evidence has to be considered in broad probability |
| 84. Samuel rajenderan maisa v a Krishna rao | when an accused in response to the summons appears and raises plea as to the maintainability of complaint, the Magistrate is competent to decide it before it could take another step. |
| 85. Surrender ku. V state of bihar | provisions of S 251 are mandatory. |
| 86. Dubey v nasingham | magistrate bound to follow the procedure and hear the prosecution and take all such evidences as may be produced in support of the prosecution and also hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produced in his defense. |
| 87. Varkey v state | no duty cast upon magistrate to hear accused in accordance with S 248 (2) before passing sentence as hat provision is only available for trial of warrant case. |
| 88. EL Joseph v Narmarajun | on the lack of appearance of the complainant the order of acquittal is not passed in every case. |
| 89. Ajay ku. Agarwal v state | s 256 vests a discretionary power in the magistrate to proceed with the trial even in the absence or death of the complainant. |
| 90. Deepa finance corp b AK muhamaad | the provisions for section 256 do not apply to the warrant case. |
| 91. Ram murti v state of karanataka | doesn’t suffer a disqualification attached to conviction. |
| 92. Mohd. Tarik v Union of india | right to release on bail under s 436(1) cannot be nullified indirectly by fixing too high bond amount. Amendment in 2005 – presumption of indigences. |
| 93. Babu ram v state | basic route is to put bail not jail except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from laws, creating disturbance to instigation or tampering the evidence. |
| 94. Mangal v hemram v state of Orissa | if chargesheet is not within time as described by court, the accused must be released on bail. |
| 95. Shiv ram goda v state of Karnataka | court at the stage of considering bail application cannot go into merits of the case. |
| 96. Shakuntala devi v state of UP | the provision of bail to women and old age persons is mandatory as ‘may’ in proviso to sec 437 means ‘shall’. |
| 97. Usmain bhai dawood bhai v state of Gujarat | court cannot refuse bail application mechanically. |
| 98. Mansingh v ganagasingh | during power of cancellation of bail has to be excercised with caution. |
| 99. Captain satish ku Sharma v delhi admin | anticipatory bail canbe granted not only by the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction offence is committed but also the court which apprehends his arrest has jurisdiction. |
| 100. Hussain khatoon and others v state of bihar | if court is satisfied after taking into account on the basis of information placed before it and that the accused has his roots in the community and is not likely to abscond, it can safely release the accused on his personal bond. |
Created by:
BloodyCasper
Popular Law sets