Important Judgments on Cr.P.C Section 200-220

Important Judgments on Cr.P.C Section 200-220

Important Judgments on Cr.P.C Section 200-220

  1. Cr.P.C Section 200 in N.I. Act cases Affidavits are allowed in lieu of verification- Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala and Ors-Date of decision 11 March 2008 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2008 SC 1614.
  2. Cr.P.C Section 200 Second complaint on same facts when tenable remanded to High Court-Rajesh Bhalchandra Chalke Vs. State of Maharashtra and Emco Dynatorq Pvt. Ltd. -Date of decision 7 December 2010 -Equivalent Citation- 2011 (1) MhLj 244.
  3. Cr.P.C Section 201 Complaint cannot be returned after issuing summons- Chand Jain vs. Fazru-Date of decision15 October 2004-Equivalent Citation- 2005 SCC (Cri) 190.
  4. Amended Examining witnesses is a compliance of postponement- Cr.P.C Section 202-Devendra Kishanlal Dagalia Vs. Dwarkesh Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. and Ors -Date of decision 25 November 2013 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2014 SC 655.
  5. Cr.P.C Section 202 In session triable offences it is not mandatory but advisable to examine all witnesses-Vijay Dhanuka Etc.Vs. Najima Mamtaj -Date of decision 27 March 2014 -Equivalent Citation-2014 CriLJ 2295.
  6. Cr.P.C Section 202 Inquiry mandatory when accused is from faraway place- Shivjee Singh Vs. Nagendra Tiwary and Ors. -Date of decision 6 July 2010 -Equivalent Citation- AIR 2010 SC 2261 .
  7. Once complaint was quashed on the ground of similar complaint being pending further complaint is not tenable- Cr.P.C Section 202-Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors-Date of decision 4 November 1997 -Equivalent Citation- AIR 1998 SC 128.
  8. Cr.P.C Section 202 Shall does not mean mandatory Not necessary to examine all witnesses in inquiry-Rajeev Sawhney Vs. State Bank of Mauritius Ltd. and Ors-Date of decision 6 May 2011-Equivalent Citation-2011 (6) MhLj 401.
  9. Magistrate has no jurisdiction to recall the process-Cr.P.C Section 203-Shivjee Singh Vs. Nagendra Tiwary and Ors-Date of decision 6 July 2010-Equivalent Citation-AIR 2010 SC 2261
  10. Sessions Trial case dismissed by Magistrate an error within jurisdiction- Cr.P.C Section 203-Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. -Date of decision 25 August 2004 -Equivalent Citation- (2004) 7 SCC 338.
  11. Cr.P.C Section 204 (Check this ratio) on receiving police report process need not be issued-Kewal Krishan Lachman Das Vs. Suraj Bhan and Anr. -Date of decision 1 August 1980 -Equivalent Citation- AIR 1980 SC 1780, 1980 CriLJ 1271, 1980 Supp (1) SCC 499.
  12. Adalat Prasad case applicable to Summons and Warrant cases- Cr.P.C Section 204- Nilesh Daulatrao Lakhani vs. State of Maharashtra-Date of decision 25-09-2014 -Equivalent Citation-2014 (4) BomCR (Cri) 757.
  13. Challenge to jurisdiction shall be made by application before trial court- Cr.P.C Section 204- Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. -Date of decision 09.2004-Equivalent Citation- (2004) 13 SCC 324.
  14. Cr.P.C Section 204 (Check this ratio) On receiving police report process need not be issued-Krishna Kumar Variar Vs. Share Shoppe-Date of decision 03.05.2010-Equivalent Citation-2010 CriLJ 3848.
  15. Court can insist for process fee in non-cognizable offences-Cr.P.C Section 204- Nilesh Daulatrao Lakhani vs. State of Maharashtra-Date of decision 25-09-2014 -Equivalent Citation-2014 (4) BomCR (Cri) 757.
  16. Detailed reasons unnecessary for issuance process- Cr.P.C Section 204- Vithi and Anr. vs Tulsiram Maroti and Crown-Date of decision 4 November 1949 -Equivalent Citation- 950 CriLJ 746
  17. P.C Section 204 order is not interlocutory Magistrate cannot review- Bhushan Kumar and Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr-Date of decision 04.04.2012-Equivalent Citation-AIR 2012 SC 1747.
  18. Cr.P.C Section 204 Summons is a process issued by court calling to appear-Bhushan Kumar and Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. -Date of decision 04.04.2012-Equivalent Citation-AIR 2012 SC 1747.
  19. Taking cognizance explained, taking cognizance means becoming aware of and to take notice of judicially -Cr.P.C Section 204-Bhushan Kumar and Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. – Date of decision 04.04.2012-Equivalent Citation-(2012) 5 SCC 422.
  20. After committal it cannot be said that the Magistrate has jurisdiction over the case-Cr.P.C Section 209-Raj Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another-Date of decision 01.05.1996-Equivalent Citation-AIR 1996 SC 1931.
  21. Committal under the new Code is not an enquiry strictly speaking Cr.P.C Section 209 Form Committal Warrant- Cr.P.C Section 209- Bhushan Kumar and Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. -Date of decision 04.04.2012-Equivalent Citation- (2012) 5 SCC 422.
  22. Magistrate has a duty to secure the Vicera Report etc before the committal- Cr.P.C Section 209-Chhotan Sao and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2014 SC 907.
  23. Magistrate has no power to summon a new accused at the stage of committal-Cr.P.C Section 209-Raj Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another -Date of decision 01.05.1996-Equivalent Citation-AIR 1996 SC 1931.
  24. Supplying copies under Section 207 is judicial function and without its compliance there can be no committal- Cr.P.C Section 209- State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Lakshmi Brahman and Anr. -Date of decision 11.03.1983-Equivalent Citation-AIR 1983 SC 439 .
  25. Without obtaining the forensic report committal by Magistrate is mechanical and without applying mind-Cr.P.C Section 209-Chhotan Sao and anr Vs. State of Bihar -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2014 SC 907.
  26. Clubbing of police case and complaint case is not permissible when the accused or the offences are not same- Cr.P.C Section 210-Pal @ Palla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh-Date of decision 22.09.2010-Equivalent Citation-(2010) 10 SCC 123.
  27. Cr.P.C Section 212(2) is an enabling provision-Delhi HC- State vs Ram Kanwar -Date of decision 03.04.1984-Equivalent Citation-1984 (1) Crimes 1040.
  28. Cr.P.C Section 212, 219 and 220 are enabling provisions for joinder of trials- Ranchhodlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh-Date of decision 27 November, 1964 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1965 SC 1248.
  29. Consecutive sentence in separate trials upheld.- Cr.P.C Section 218 and 219 Charge IPC Section 409- Ranchhodlal vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh -Date of decision27 November, 1964-Equivalent Citation-1965 AIR 1248.
  30. Accused never objected joint trial and hence consenting party and hence conviction upheld- Cr.P.C Section218 and Sectionv 409 IPC- Manoharlal Lohe Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh-Date of decision- 3 November, 1980 Equivalent Citation-1981 CriLJ 1563.
  31. Difference between irregularity and illegality in joinder of charges- Cr.P.C Section 218-Birichh Bhuian and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar-Date of decision 20-11-1962 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1963 SC 1120.
  32. Clubbing of police case for Section 498 A and 306 and complaint case for Section 302 and 304B against same accused has been upheld- Cr.P.C Section 220- Aklak Ahmed Fakruddin Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra -Date of decision 28.09.2010-Equivalent Citation-2011 CriLJ 126.
  33. Complainant filed separate cases of Section 420 IPC and Section 138 NI Act Held separate trials were not improper- Cr.P.C Section 220- Manivannan And S. Krishnamoorthy vs. P.R. Adhikesavan-Date of decision 7 February 2008 -Equivalent Citation- MANU-TN-0178-2008.
  34. Each depositor’s case is individual offence- Cr.P.C Section 220- Narinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. vs. Union of India and ors-Date of decision 12 October 2001 -Equivalent Citation- AIR 2001 SC 3810.
  35. For separate cheque separate trial has been justified- Cr.P.C Section 220- Nova Vision Electronics Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. Vs. State and Anr. -Equivalent Citation-2011 CriLJ 868.
  36. Cr.P.C Section 220 Same transaction Kidnapping from Nagpur Rape in Jabalpur Either Court can try-Praveen vs. State Of Maharashtra-Date of decision-Equivalent Citation- 2001 CriLJ 3417.

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 190 to 199.

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."