Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam

Magistrate Not Bound to Direct Police Investigation in Every Case: Delhi High Court Upholds Discretion in FIR Registration

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has reiterated the discretionary power of magistrates in directing police to register FIRs. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar on November 29, 2023, emphasized that “the Magistrate is not bound to direct police investigation in every case disclosing a cognizable offence.”

The case, titled W.P.(CRL) 1210/2023 and CRL.M.A. 11298/2023, Involved a petitioner seeking directions for FIR registration and protection, which was ultimately denied by the court. The court’s ruling highlighted the critical aspects of judicial discretion and the proper application of Sections 156(3) and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).

Justice Bhatnagar’s decision stressed the importance of a judicial approach in considering applications for police investigation. He remarked that “the Magistrate ought to direct investigation by the police if the evidence is required to be collected with the assistance of the police.” This statement underscores the necessity for magistrates to evaluate the need for police intervention on a case-by-case basis, rather than issuing directions mechanically.

The judgment also addressed the limitations of the High Court's Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, specifically in cases where a revision petition has already been adjudicated upon by lower courts. The court firmly stated that such powers “should not be used as a substitute for second revision petitions,” thus upholding the sanctity of the judicial process and discouraging frivolous litigation.

Furthermore, the ruling acknowledged the importance of preventing the misuse of judicial mechanisms and procedures. It reinforced the principle that High Court intervention is warranted only in cases of “miscarriage of justice or abuse of process.”

Date of Decision: 29 November  2023

ANJURI KUMARI VS  THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

 

Latest Legal News