Plaintiff In Title Suit Must Prove Own Case On Independent Evidence, Cannot Rely On Weakness Of Defence: Supreme Court Advocate Commissioner's Failure To Localize Land Per Title Deeds Fatal To Encroachment Claim: Andhra Pradesh High Court Enmity Is A Double-Edged Weapon, Can Be Motive For False Implication As Much As For Crime: Allahabad High Court Parity In Bail: Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To Accused In Robbery Case As Mastermind & Main Offenders Were Already Enlarged Specific Performance Denied If Buyer Fails To Prove Continuous Readiness With Funds; Part-Payment Can't Be Forfeited Without Specific Clause: Delhi High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept In Police Stations For Long, Courts Must Judiciously Exercise Power To Release On Supurdagi: Madhya Pradesh High Court Prolonged Incarceration Militates Against Article 21, Constitutional Principles Must Override Section 37 NDPS Rigors: Punjab & Haryana High Court Onus On Individual To Prove Claim Of 'Fear Of Religious Persecution' For Exemption Under Foreigners Act: Calcutta High Court Direct Recruits Cannot Claim Seniority From A Date Prior To Their Entry Into The Cadre: Orissa High Court Sale Deed Executed After Land Vests In State Confers No Title; Post-Vesting Purchaser Can’t Claim Compensation: Calcutta High Court No Right To Blanket Regularization For Contractual Staff; State Must Timely Fill Sanctioned Vacancies Under Reserved Quota: Supreme Court Non-Signatory Collaborator Under 'Deed Of Joint Undertaking' Can Invoke Arbitration Clause As A 'Veritable Party': Supreme Court Insolvency Proceedings Cannot Be Used As Coercive Recovery Mechanism For Complex Contractual Disputes: Supreme Court Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To Sale Cannot Challenge Transfer Under PTCL Act After Long Delay: Supreme Court SC/ST Act | Proceedings To Annul Sale Illegal If Initiated By Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To The Transaction: Supreme Court Consumers Cannot Be Burdened With Tariff Charges Beyond Period Of Service Delivery: Supreme Court Mere Non-Production Of Old Selection Records Or Non-Publication Of All Candidates' Marks No Ground To Direct Appointment: Supreme Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals Against Acquittal In Sohrabuddin Shaikh Encounter Case; Says Prosecution Failed To Prove Conspiracy Dishonour Of Cheque Due To Signature Mismatch Or Incomplete Signature Attracts Section 138 NI Act: Supreme Court 138 NI Act | High Court Cannot Let Off Accused In NI Act Case By Ordering Only Cheque Amount Payment Without Interest Or Penalty: Supreme Court

Court Can Make Complaint U/S 195 or 340 Cr.P.C Without Hearing The Accused : Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court stated that it is not required to provide a potential accuser with a hearing chance prior to filing a complaint under Section 195/340 CrPC.

Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka, and Vikram Nath made up the Three Judges Bench, which was responding to a reference from a two judge bench. The questions were: 1) Does Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 require a preliminary investigation and an opportunity for the potential accuser to be heard before a court files a complaint under Section 195 of the Code? (ii) What are the parameters and reach of such a preliminary investigation?

The bench had detected a discrepancy between the positions taken by the decisions of two and three judges at the time. In Pritish v. State of Maharashtra & Ors (2002) 1 SCC 253, it was decided that while the court is not required to conduct a preliminary investigation into a complaint, if it chooses to do so, it should compile a complete set of the facts that would be useful in determining whether the offence should be looked into further. In Sharad Pawar v. Jagmohan Dalmiya (2010) 15 SCC 290, it was said that a preliminary investigation, as required by Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, must be conducted in order to "to allow the defendants an opportunity of being heard."

The bench stated in its response to the reference that the information presented in Sharad Pawar's case (above) is just an order, not a decision.

State of Punjab vs Jasbir Singh

Latest Legal News