CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS NOT TO BE QUASHED ON THE BASIS OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN ACCUSED AND INFORMANT

Honorable Supreme Court held that a criminal case cannot be quashed on the ground that there is a settlement between the accused and informant and that to in case of 307 I P C which is non compoundable. (2019 SCC OnLine SC 7)

POWER OF COURTS TO RECALL ITS ORDER PASSED UNDER Cr.P.C.

The courts has no power to recall its own order passed under the provisions of Cr.P.C.  The Supreme Court  while discussing the order passed by lower court discharging the accused and recalling the discharge order subsequently, held that once order is passed under Cr.P.C. by the court it cannot be recalled or reviewed since there is no provision of recall or review  in Cr.P.C.

( Deepu vs State of M.P. 2018(4) Crimes 505 SC)

POLICE TO KEEP NAME OF THE VICTIM OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN SEALED COVER AND REPLACE WITH IDENTICAL NAMES.

1.The police officials should keep all the documents in which the name of the victim is disclosed, as far as possible, in a sealed cover and replace these documents by identical documents in which the name of the victim is removed in all records which may be scrutinised in the public domain.

2 All the authorities to which the name of the victim is disclosed by the investigating agency or the court are also duty bound to keep the name and identity of the victim secret and not disclose it in any manner except in the report which should only be sent in a sealed cover to the investigating agency or the court.

3 An application by the next of kin to authorize disclosure of identity of a dead victim or of a  victim of unsound mind under Section 228A(2)(c) of IPC should be made only to the Sessions Judge concerned until the Government acts under Section 228A(1)(c) and lays down a criteria as per our directions for identifying such social welfare institutions or organisations.

4 In case of minor victims under POCSO, disclosure of their identity can only be permitted by the Special Court, if such disclosure is in the interest of the child.

5. All the States/Union Territories are requested to set up at least one ‘one stop center’ in every district within one year from today.

(Nipun Saxena and others vs Union of India and others, WP 565/2012 decided on 11-12-18)

JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES HAVE NO POWER TO INTERFERE IN THE INVESTIGATION.

Discussing the power of courts relating to the investigation the Supreme Court observed “the legal position is absolutely clear and also settled by judicial authorities that the Court would not interfere with the investigation or during the course of investigation which would mean from the time of the lodging of the First Information Report till the submission of the report by the officer in charge of police station in court under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., this field being exclusively reserved for the investigating agency.  ( Union of India vs P. P. Hinduja 2003(6) SCC 195)

PRESERVATION AND EXAMINATION OF VISCERA IS MUST IN CASES OF SUSPECTED POISONING

It is often seen that there is a considerable delay in sending the viscera  to the FSL and its examination by the FSL which causes delay in submitting the police report as well as trial of the cases in the court. The hon’ble Supreme Court  in case of  Joshinder Yadav vs State Of Bihar on 20 January, 2014 observed “in several cases where poisoning is suspected, the prosecuting agencies are not taking steps to obtain viscera report, we feel it necessary to issue certain directions in that behalf. We direct that in cases where poisoning is suspected, immediately after the post- mortem, the viscera should be sent to the FSL. The prosecuting agencies should ensure that the viscera is, in fact, sent to the FSL for examination and the FSL should ensure that the viscera is examined immediately and report is sent to the investigating agencies/courts post haste. If the viscera report is not received, the concerned court must ask for explanation and must summon the concerned officer of the FSL to give an explanation as to why the viscera report is not forwarded to the investigating agency/court. The criminal court must ensure that it is brought on record.” ( Joshinder Yadav vs State Of Bihar, Crl. App. N. 259/2009 decided on 20-01-2014)