Magistrate Cannot Suo Motu Direct Further Investigation After Discharging The Accused: SC

The Supreme Court has observed that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to suo moto pass an order for further investigation/reinvestigation after he discharges the accused. The power to order further investigation which may be available to the Magistrate at the pre­cognizance stage may not be available to the Magistrate at the post-cognizance stage, more particularly, when the accused is discharged by him.

The bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah noted that when a report is forwarded by the police to the Magistrate under Section 173(2)(i) of the CrPC, the Magistrate may either (1) accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or (2) may disagree with the report and drop the proceedings, or (3) may direct further investigation under Section 156(3) and require the police to make a further report. But all this is done at the pre--cognizance stage, the bench observed.

"If the Magistrate was not satisfied with the investigation carried out by the investigating officer and the report submitted by the investigating officer under Section 173(2) (i) of the CrPC, as observed by this Court in catena of decisions and as observed hereinabove, it was always open/permissible for the Magistrate to direct the investigating agency for further investigation and may postpone even the framing of the charge and/or taking any final decision on the report at that stage. However, once the learned Magistrate, on the basis of the report and the materials placed along with the report, discharges the accused, we are afraid that thereafter the Magistrate can suo moto order the further investigation by the investigating agency. Once the order of discharge is passed, thereafter the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to suo moto direct the investigating officer for further investigation and submit the report"

In the instant case, the investigating authority did not apply for further investigation and that the learned Magistrate suo moto passed an order for further investigation and directed the investigating officer to further investigate and submit the report, which is impermissible under the law. Such a course of action is beyond the jurisdictional competence of the Magistrate. Therefore, that part of the order passed by the learned Magistrate ordering further investigation after he discharges the accused, cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 

(Bikash Ranjan Rout Versus State through the Secretary (Home), Government of NCT of Delhi, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 687 OF 2019 decided on 16/4/19 Supreme Court.)

Magistrate cannot direct police to file charge sheet on receipt of closure report: Supreme Court.

While discussing the legal position Supreme Court observed:-

That The law is well-settled that in case a final report is filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. stating that no offence is made out against the accused, any of the following courses can be adopted by the Magistrate:

(a) He may accept the report which was filed by the police in which case the proceedings would stand closed.

 (b) He may not accept the report and may take cognizance in the matter on the basis of such final report which was presented by the police.

(c) If he is not satisfied by the investigation so undertaken by the police, he may direct further investigation in the matter.

The law is further well-settled that the judicial discretion to be used by the Magistrate at such stage has to fall in either of the three aforesaid categories.

In the present matter, the magistrate has issued directions directing the police to file charge-sheet under Section 326 and 294 IPC and also the provision of Section 3(1) and 10 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Such a direction is wholly unsustainable.

RAMSWARUP SONY VS  STATE OF M.P.,CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.614 OF 2019 DECIDED ON 8-04-2019

SUPREME COURT ISSUES DIRECTIONS FOR THE BETTER IMPLEMENTATION OF POCSO ACT

A three judges bench of Supreme Court issued following directions for better implementation of POCSO Act

• The High Courts shall ensure that the cases registered under the POCSO Act are tried and disposed off by special courts in compliance with the provisions of the Act

• Such “special courts”, as envisaged under the POCSO Act, may be assigned the duty to deal with cases under the Act

• Instructions shall be issued to the “special courts” to fast-track the disposal of matters by not granting any unnecessary adjournments and following the procedure under the Act of 2012

 • The High Courts shall constitute a committee of an appropriate number of judges to monitor the progress of trial under the Act

 • The Director General of Police of the states shall constitute a Special Task Force to assist in investigation and the production of witnesses before the trial courts on the due date

 • Efforts shall be made by the High Courts to provide child friendly courts in accordance with the spirit of the POCSO Act.

WRIT PETITION (C) No.76 OF 2018

ALAKH ALOK SRIVASTAVA      VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. SC decided on  1-5-2018                   

SEX AFTER OBTAINING CONSENT BY FALSE PROMISE TO MARRY IS RAPE,

The  Supreme Court while dealing with the above subject observed

“The prosecution has been successful in proving the case that from the very beginning the accused never intended to marry the prosecutrix; he gave false promises/promise to the prosecutrix to marry her and on such false promise he had a physical relation with the prosecutrix; the prosecutrix initially resisted, however, gave the consent relying upon the false promise of the accused that he will marry her and, therefore, her consent can be said to be a consent on misconception of fact as per Section 90 of the IPC and such a consent shall not excuse the accused from the charge of rape and offence under Section 375 of the IPC"

Anurag Soni  Vs State of Chhattisgarh,  Crl. Appl. N. 629 OF 2019 decided on 9/4/2019 SC

498A IPC -Case Can Be Filed At A Place Where A Woman Driven Out Of Matrimonial Home Takes Shelter: Supreme Court

Answering a reference pending for about seven years, the Supreme Court has held that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code

Rupali Devi Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, Criminal Appeal No.71 Of 2012 Decided On 09-04-19

Dangerous For Children": Madras HC Prohibits Downloading Of TikTok Mobile Application

Discussing the bad effects of Tik Tok mobile Application, the Madras High Court banned the downloading of Tik Tok App. High court also imposed ban on publication of Tik Tok videos.
WP (MD) 7855/2019 decided on 3/4/19

NO ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO PROCLAIMED OFFENDERS

Quashing the orders of M.P. High Court the Supreme Court in case of  State of M.P. vs Pradeep Sharma, Crl. Appeal No.50/2013 decided on 6/12/2013 held that this is the settled position of law that accused who is absconding and declared as proclaimed offender under section 82 Cr.P.C. should not be granted anticipatory bail.