MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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