Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 319-342

Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 319-342

Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 319-342

  • Accused named in FIR but excluded, police can be summoned even without cross exam of the witness-Cr.P.C Section 319- Rakesh and Anr. vs. State of Haryana– Date of decision 25 July 2001 – Equivalent Citation AIR 2001 SC 2521.
  • Larger Bench explained A person discharged can be arraigned again as accused after an inquiry as contemplated by Section 300(5) and 398 (5JJs) – Larger Bench explained when can section 319 be resorted Cr.P.C Section 319 –Hardeep Singh etc. VS. State of Punjab and Ors. Date of decision January 10 2014 – Equivalent Citation AIR 2014 SC 1400
  • Magistrate can proceed against an accused whom the Magistrate refused to summon- Cr.P.C Section 319 –Dr. S.S. Khanna Vs. Chief Secretary, Patna and Anr. Date of decision 12 April 1983 -Equivalent Citation –AIR 1983 SC 595 (2Judges).
  • Magistrate can take cognizance against the accused named in FIR but omitted in the charge sheet- Cr.P.C Section 319-Uma Shankar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. Date of decision 9 September 2010 -Equivalent Citation-(2010) 9 SCC 479.
  • Magistrate cannot issue process to FIR named but charge sheet unnamed accused at committal stage (Two Judges)- Cr.P.C Section 319- Kishori Singh and Ors.Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. Date of decision 27.01.2000-Equivalent Citation- AIR 2000 SC 3725.
  • Purpose of power under section Cr.P.C Section 319 is explained-Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Anr-Equivalent Citation- AIR 2007 SC 2786.
  • Offence of Section 324 IPC prior to amendment is compoundable- Cr.P.C Section 320- Hirabhai Jhaverbhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.-Date of decision 9 April 2010 -Equivalent Citation- AIR 2010 SC 2321.
  • Partly compounding is not permissible- Cr.P.C Section 320-Rameshchandra J. Thakkar Vs. Assandas Parmanand Jhaveri, State of Maharashtra– Date of decision 13 October 1972 -Equivalent Citation- AIR 1973 SC 84, 1973 CriLJ 201, (1973) 3 SCC 884, 1973 2 SCR 691.
  • Partly compounding was maintained without discussion on validity- Cr.P.C Section 320-Rajinder SinghVs. State (Delhi Administration) – Date of decision 9 May 1980-Equivalent Citation- AIR 1980 SC 1200, 1980 Supp (1) SCC 337.
  • Referring to Larger Bench as Section 420 IPC is compoundable and Section 120B is non-compoundable- Cr.P.C Section 320- Gian SinghVs. State of Punjab and Anr.-Equivalent Citation- (2010) 15 SCC 118.
  • Under Section 482 non-compoundable offence’s FIR can be quashed- Cr.P.C Section 320- Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Vs. The State of Maharashtra– Date of decision 12 March 2008 -Equivalent Citation- 2008 (2) MhLj 856.
  • When can the F.I.R. be quashed guidelines given-Cr.P.C Section 320-Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.- Date of decision 24 September 2012 -Equivalent Citation- (2012) 10 SCC 303.
  • Grounds for seeking Courts consent for withdrawal, Withdrawal permission principles discussed – Cr.P.C Section 321- Sheonandan PaswanVs. State of Bihar and Ors. – Date of decision 20.12.1986-Equivalent Citation- AIR 1987 SC 877.
  • Sessions Judge has power to try any offence Cross cases should be tried by him- Cr.P.C Section 323 – Sudhir and ors. etc. vs. State of M.P. etc. – Date of decision 2 February 2001 -Equivalent Citation- AIR 2001 SC 826, 2001 (2) ALT Cri 79, 2001 CriLJ 1072, JT 2001 (2) SC 274, 2001 (1) KLT 682 SC, 2001 (2) MPHT 359, 2001 (1) SCALE 600, (2001) 2 SCC 688, 2001 1 SCR 813.
  • Magistrate has to write an order but not judgment- Cr.P.C Section 325- Khoda Bux MalVs.Ohadali Mal-Equivalent Citation- AIR 1949 Cal 308
  • When Magistrate cannot exceed the limit of Section 29 for want of special provision he has to resort to Section 325 and not 323- Cr.P.C Section 325- II Addl. Judicial First Class MagistrateVs.State of A.P. – Date of decision 7 September  2004 -Equivalent Citation- 2005 CriLJ 1168 DB, 2005 (1) ALD Cri 625. 
  • Magistrate has to record finding of guity and CJM cannot send back case- Cr.P.C Section 325(1)- Rajagopal Vs. Forest Range Officer-Date of decision 23 December 2011 -Equivalent Citation- 2012 (1) CTC 639.
  • Magistrate to record finding and then refer to CJM-Cr.P.C Section 325(1)- Nagesh Vs. State of Karnataka-Equivalent Citation- 1990 CriLJ 2234.
  • Evidence and not substance of evidence is recorded- Cr.P.C Section 326 and N.I. Act Section 138-Jaikishan Kanjiwani Vs Kumar Matching Centre– Date of decision 21 July 2010 -Equivalent Citation- 2011 CriLJ 134.
  • Denovo Trial In an extremely serious case of exceptional nature it would occasion in failure of justice if Prosecution is not taken to logical conclusion- Cr.P.C Section 326- Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali – Date of decision 11 January 2012 -Equivalent Citation- 2012 CriLJ 4537
  • Discretion given to court to read previous evidence – Cr.P.C Section 326- Ranbir Yadav Vs State of Bihar – Date of decision 21 March 1995 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1995 SC 1219, 1995 SCC (4) 392.
  • Once the Magistrate used the discretion to try summarily, on his transfer it should be denovo- Cr.P.C Section 326- Pratibha Pandurang Salvi Vs. State of Maharashtra– Date of decision 13.11.2009-Equivalent Citation- 2010 CriLJ 730.
  • If the evidence was not recorded summarily but fully then no need of denovo- Cr.P.C Section 326(3) and NI Act Section 138 and 142- J.V. Baharuni vs. State of Gujarat– Date of decision 16.10.2014-Equivalent Citation- (2014) 10 SCC 494.
  • Pursis of accused would not make legal to read evidence recorded by previous Magistrate- Cr.P.C Section 326(3) and Section 138 NI Act- Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah and Anr. Vs. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal and Anr. – Date of decision 1 September, 2011 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2011 SC 3076.
  • Denovo Trial not necessary Cr.P.C Section 326(3) Justice Mridula Bhatkar’s judgment on summary trial- Shyambahadur Purshottam Sharma Vs. Shri. Sudhakar Narshu Poojary– Date of decision 23 August 2013 -Equivalent Citation-MANU-MH-1393-2013.
  • No need of denovo trial- Cr.P.C Section 326(3)- K. Jayachandran Vs O. Nargeese and Anr. – Date of decision 10 April 1987 -Equivalent Citation-1987 CriLJ 1997.
  • Sessions Court to record evidence denovo- Cr.P.C Section 326(3)- Abdul Sukkur Barbhuiya Vs. the State of Assam and others– Gauhati HC – Date of decision-24 January 2012 – Criminal Revision Petition No. 192 of 2011.
  • Succeeding Judge can proceed (Case under old CR.P.C.)- Cr.P.C Section 326(3)-Reserve Bank Employees Association, Nagpur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. – Date of decision 4 April 1968 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1969 Bom 199 , (1969) 71 BOMLR 99, 1969 CriLJ 711, ILR 1969 Bom 804.
  • In camera proceeding directions- Cr.P.C Section 327-State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh and Others– Date of decision 16 January 1996 -Equivalent Citation- AIR 1996 SC 1393, 1996 SCC (2) 384.
  • In camera trial and not to disclose the name of the victim- Cr.P.C Section 327- Sakshi Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Date of decision 26 May, 2004 -Equivalent Citation- AIR 2004 SC 3566.
  • Acquittal case, Course to be adopted while acquitting on insanity ground- Cr.P.C Section 334- The State of Maharashtra Vs. Subhashsing Shalikramsingh Raghuwanshi-Equivalent Citation-1995(1) MhLj 358.
  • Accused was acquitted and released under section 338 of Cr.P.C- Cr.P.C Section 338 and IPC Section 84-Ms. Leena Balkrishna Nair Vs. The State of Maharashtra– Date of decision 13 April 2010-Equivalent Citation-2010 CriLJ 3392.
  • Compensation to the victim- Cr.P.C Section  342- D.K. Basu Vs. State of  West Bengal– Date of decision 18.12.1996-Equivalent Citation-AIR 1997 SC 610.
  • Answers given by accused may be taken into consideration at enquiry or trial- Cr.P.C Section  342 (3)- State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdeo Singh and another– Date of decision 15 July 1992 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1992 SC 2100, 1992 SCR (3) 480.

DISCLAIMER: The above judgments are posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout’s from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contacts your advocate.

Also Read:-Important Judgments on Cr.P.C Section 301-318.

Feel free to Share this

Bhupendra Sharma

"Bhupendra Sharma is a practicing lawyer at Rajasthan High Court who completed his graduation from the University of Rajasthan. He has pursued his LLM from Acharya Nagarjuna University. He is also a degree holder in Master of Education and Master of Business Administration."