Important judgments on Cr.P.C. Section 101-155

Important judgments on Cr.P.C. Section 101-155

Important judgments on Cr.P.C. Section 101-155

  1. Property does not include immovable property- Cr.P.C. Section  102(1)- Bombay HC Full bench- Sudhir Vasant Karnataki Vs. The State of Maharashtra  -Equivalent Citation-2011 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 326, 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 96.
  2. Cr.P.C. Section 103 applicable to search of a place and not of a person. Hence, independent witnesses not necessary- Sunder Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1956 SC 411.
  3. Passport can be impounded by Passport Authority and not by Police- Cr.P.C. Section 104-Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I. -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2008 SC 1414.
  4. No provision to ask for interim bond- Cr.P.C. Section 107 and 116- The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs. Mangali Dewaiyya Pupalla -Equivalent Citation-1994 MhLJ 483.
  5. No interim bond and CJM reduced bond- Cr.P.C. Section 107 and 123- Rajesh Suryabhan Nayak Vs. The State of Maharashtra -Equivalent Citation-2006 (5) MhLj 243.
  6. No provision to ask for interim bond- Cr.P.C. Section 107-Pramila Navin Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors -Equivalent Citation- 2005 (15) Criminal CC 1051.
  7. Sessions Judge has to interfere if action is illegal- Cr.P.C. Section 107-Dattatraya Mahadu Tikkal Vs. The State of Maharashtra -Equivalent Citation-2014 (1) BomCR (Cri) 439.
  8. Training to Executive Magistrates directed by High Court- Cr.P.C. Section 116 –Pravin Vijaykumar Taware Vs.The Special Executive Magistrate -Equivalent Citation- 2009 (111) BOMLR 3166.
  9. CJM exercised jurisdiction-Cr.P.C. Section 123 (2) and (3)-Rajesh Suryabhan NayakVs.The State of Maharashtra -Equivalent Citation- 2006 (5) MhLj 243.
  10. Rights of mior children and unmarried daughter are protected- Cr.P.C. SECTION 125 and Section 3 of MWPOD Act- Noor Saba Khatoon vs. Mohd. Quasim  -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1997 SC 3280      .
  11. Cr.P.C.Section 125 applicable to Muslim divorced women also- Mohd. Ahmed KhanVs.Shah Bano Begum and Ors -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1985 SC 945.
  12. Cr.P.C. Section 125 application for muslim child is tenable- Allabuksh Karim ShaikhVs. Smt. Noorjahan Allabuksh Shaikh and another -Equivalent Citation-1994 MhLJ 1376 .
  13. Daughter in law was directed to maintain mother in law- Cr.P.C. Section 125- Saroj Govind Mukkawar Vs. Smt. Chandrakalabai Polshetwar -Equivalent Citation-2009 (4) MhLj 665.
  14. DNA Test prevails over the presumption- Cr.P.C. Section 125-Nandlal Wasudeo BadwaikVs.Lata Nandlal Badwaik and Anr. -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2014 SC 932.
  15. Illegitimate child is entitled for maintenance- Cr.P.C. Section 125-Bakulabai and Anr.Vs.Gangaram and Anr -Equivalent Citation- (1988) 1 SCC 537.
  16. Judgment shall contain reasons for finding for grant of maintenance from the date of application-Cr.P.C. Section 125- Jaiminiben Hirenbhai VyasVs.Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas-Decided On 19.11. 2014-SC- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2435 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3345 of 2013).
  17. Maintenance by Family Court to major daughter was upheld. Cr.P.C. Section 125-Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Manju Lata and Ors. -Equivalent Citation-(2002) 5 SCC 422.
  18. Major son is not entitled for maintenance-Cr.P.C. Section 125-Shivaji Baburao Bhabad @ Bhawad Vs. Sau. Alka Shivaji Bhabad-Criminal Writ Petition No. 955 of 2009 decided on 14.01.2010.
  19. Major son though student is not entitled for maintenance from father- Cr.P.C. Section 125-Jagir Singh Vs. Ranbir Singh and Anr.-Equivalent Citation-AIR 1979 SC 381.
  20. Permission granted to amend petition-Cr.P.C. Section 125-Chinnappaiyan Chellandi Vs. Chinnathayee Chinnappaiyan -Equivalent Citation-2010(1) Crimes 835.
  21. Second wife maintenance rejected but compensation granted in revision- Cr.P.C. Section 125- Manda R. Thaore Vs. Sh. Ramaji Ghanshyam Thaore- Criminal Revision Application No. 317-2006 Decided On 20.04.2010.
  22. Woman married by Hindu man having living spouse is not entitled for maintenance- Cr.P.C. Section 125- Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.-Equivalent Citation-AIR 2005 SC 1809.
  23. Successive applications are unnecessary and Limitation is not barred when the arrears upto date are included by interim application- Cr.P.C. Section 125 (3)-Shantha @ Ushadevi and Anr. Vs. B.G. Shivananjappa– -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2005 SC 2410.
  24. Successive orders of one month imprisonment upheld- Cr.P.C. Section 125 (3) – Rajesh Bhiwaji NandeVs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.  -Equivalent Citation- 2005 (2) MhLj 977.
  25. Adultery defence not applicable after divorce.-Cr.P.C. Section 125 (4)-Dalip Singh Vs. Rajbala -Equivalent Citation-II (2007) DMC 273.
  26. Divorced on cruelty ground is till entitled for maintenance- Cr.P.C. Section 125(4) Gita Vs. Chandrasekhar– High Court of Bombay at Nagpur-Criminal Application No.663 of 2008 & Criminal Writ Petition No.58 of 2008, Criminal Application No.663 of 2008 Decided On 20 January 2009.
  27. Cr.P.C. Section 125(4) includes adultery by divorced wife- M. Chinna Karuppasamy Vs. Kanimozhi -Equivalent Citation-2015 ALLMR (Cri) 615.
  28. Isolated instance of adultery is not sufficient to deny maintenance- Cr.P.C. Section 125 (4)-Chanda Preetam Wadate Vs. Preetam Ganpatrao Wadate -Equivalent Citation-2002 (2) MhLj 482.
  29. Cr.P.C. Section 125(4)-Wife does not include divorcee-Vanamala (Smt) Vs. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta-Equivalent Citation-(1995) 5 SCC 299.
  30. Precondition to deposit arrears cannot be put- Cr.P.C. Section 127 (1)-Ashok Yeshwant Samant Vs. Smt. Suparna Ashok Samant and another -Equivalent Citation-1991CriLJ 766.
  31. If the offence is same there cannot be two FIRs. Magistrate can treat application as a complaint- Cr.P.C. Section 154 and 156(3)-Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. -Equivalent Citation-2013 CriLJ 776.
  32. The IO can forward the FIR to the police station having jurisdiction if the offence was beyond own jurisdiction- Cr.P.C. Section 154 and 177-Satvinder Kaur Vs.State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) -Equivalent Citation- AIR 1999 SC 3596.
  33. Police can investigate SECTION 494 with 498A of IPC as Section 498A is cognizable- Cr.P.C. Section 154 and 198A-Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada and Ors. -Equivalent Citation-2012 ACR 1859.
  34. The person who lodges the FIR be called the Informant and not the Complainant- Cr.P.C. Section 154 and 354-Sharanappa and anr. -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2014 SC 1198.
  35. For deciding tenability of two FIRs sameness test should be applied-Cr.P.C. Section 154- Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. -Equivalent Citation-(2010) 12 SCC 254.
  36. In a 9 years old theft case held that mere delay itself is not a ground to discard a case.-Cr.P.C. Section 154-Ashi Devi and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-Equivalent Citation-MANU-SC-0526-2014.
  37. Overwriting limited to converting 4 to 5 in FIR is immaterial- Cr.P.C. Section 154-Gosu Jayarami Reddy Vs. State of A.P. -Equivalent Citation- (2011) 11 SCC 766.
  38. Police cannot refuse to register the F.I.R. under the pretext of preliminary inquiry when cognizable offences are made out, shall register FIR instead of ignoring as civil dispute- Cr.P.C. Section 154- Charu Kishor Mehta and etc.Vs.State of Maharashtra and Anr.2011 -Equivalent Citation- CriLJ 1486.
  39. Police is bound to register F.I.R.- Cr.P.C. Section 154-Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and Ors. -Equivalent Citation-2014 CriLJ 470.
  40. Police officer going to the place of occurrence to make some survey does not amount to making an investigation-Cr.P.C. Section 154- Lalita Satish Narayan Sawant Vs. State of Goa -Equivalent Citation-2009 CriLJ 4655.
  41. Recording FIR is an official act and has such presumption- Cr.P.C. Section 154 –Sone Lal And Ors -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1978 SC 1142.
  42. Reliability genuineness and credibility of the information are not the conditions precedent- Cr.P.C. Section 154-Charu Kishor Mehta and etc. etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr -Equivalent Citation-2011 CriLJ 1486.
  43. Cr.P.C. Section 195 and 340 do not come in the way of investigation by police. On the basis of such investigation the Court can file complaint- Cr.P.C. Section 154- Narayandas vs State Of Karnataka And Ors– -Equivalent Citation-2004 Cri.L.J. 822
  44. There cannot be two FIRs of the same person of same incident-Surender Kaushik and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors-Cr.P.C. Section 154 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2013 SC 3614.
  45. When a FIR is already there sameness test shall be used for the subsequent FIRs-Cr.P.C. Section 154-Surender Kaushik and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2013 SC 3614.
  46. When can the Court pass appropriate orders-Cr.P.C. Section 154 –State Of Haryana And Ors Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors -Equivalent Citation-1992 AIR 604.
  47. When information was cryptic the police officer going to the place of occurrence to make some survey is not an investigation-Cr.P.C. Section 154- Satish Narayan Sawant Vs.State of Goa-Equivalent Citation-2009 CriLJ 4655.
  48. Police can investigate a non- cognizable offence under EC Act along with Section 420 IPC-Cr.P.C. Section 155-Pravin Chandra Mody Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1965 SC 1185.
  49. Once permission is obtained the procedure applicable to cognizable offences is applicable- Cr.P.C. Section 155(2) and (3)-Dashrath Kishan Kotkar and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra– -Equivalent Citation-1986 MhLJ 986.
  50. Obtaining Magistrate’s permission is necessary-Vithal Puna Koli (Shirsath) and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra-Cr.P.C. Section 155(2) -Equivalent Citation-MH-0633-2006 .
  51. Permission was not obtained Hence prosecution for offence of Section 145 Police Act was held untenable-Cr.P.C. Section 155(2)-State of Maharashtra vs. Dharmendra Ambar Mohite -Equivalent Citation-Decided on 10.09.1998 – BOM-HC. 2000 (5) BomCR 89, 1999 (1) MhLj 952.
  52. Prosecution for Section 124 of Bombay Police Act quashed for want of permission Avinash Madhukar-Cr.P.C. Section 155(2)-Mukhedkar vs. The State of Maharashtra -Equivalent Citation-1983 CriLJ 1833.

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

Also Read:-Important judgments on Cr P C Section 1-100

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."