Back
H.K.SEMA, P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN
Lallan Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
Police officers must conduct a missing person inquiry promptly upon receipt of such information, but registration of a formal case under Section 154 CrPC is triggered only if the details disclose a cognizable offence. (!) (!) (!) The provision mandates registration without any preliminary assessment of the information's genuineness, credibility, or reliability, which can be verified only post-registration during investigation under Sections 156 and 157 CrPC.[1000388580007][1000388580009] Omitting to register all disclosed cognizable offences from the inquiry prevents proper investigation and constitutes a miscarriage of justice, warranting judicial intervention to ensure proceedings align with Section 209 CrPC.[1000388580010][1000388580011][1000388580014]
JUDGMENT
H.K. Sema, J.—Leave granted.
2. This appeal is preferred by the accused, nine in numbers, against the judgment and order dated 8.10.2002 passed by the High Court whereby the High Court directed the concerned Magistrate to proceed in the matter in accordance with law as contained in Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned public prosecutor for the State.
4. The controversy involved in this appeal is in short compass being purely a question of law and it may not be necessary to recite the entire facts leading to the filing of the present appeal.
5. Complaint Case No. 223C/1996 was filed before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sikrahana at Motihari, District East Champaran by Yogendra Prasad - the respondent herein, to the effect that on 7.6.1996 at about 6.00 PM the accused - Lalan Chaudhary, Din Bandhu Chaudhary, Sanjeev Kumar @ Ghutan, Lalbabu Prasad, Bhola Shah, Nageshwar Shah, Bhagrit Raut, Joka Majhi and Suruj Raut having formed unlawful assembly and armed with Lathi, Fatta, Farsa, Nalkatwa and Rifle, illegally entered in the residential house of the complainant and indulged in Loo
None. No entries contain keywords or phrases indicating that any precedent has been overruled, reversed, abrogated, criticized, questioned, or otherwise treated as bad law.
These entries contain explicit positive treatment indicators such as "re-iterated", "relying on", "held as under" (with quotation), "following", "ruling of", "affirmed", "taken [the same view]", "referring to", or similar phrases showing the precedent (primarily Lallan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar) was followed, relied upon, or approvingly applied:
PRIYA GUPTA VS STATE - 2007 0 Supreme(Del) 832: "Apex Court emphasized ... facts ... akin" (positive analogy and emphasis).
Aleque Padamsee VS Union of India - Crimes (2007): "re-iterated in Lallan Chaudhary".
Aleque Padamsee VS Union Of India - 2007 5 Supreme 430: "re-iterated in Lallan Chaudhary".
Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee v. State of A. P. and Another - 2008 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11: "relying on a judgment ... Lallan Chaudhary".
Raj Khatun VS States of Tripura - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 665: "relying on a decision of the Apex Court in Lallan Chaudhary".
Charu Kishor Mehta VS State of Maharashtra - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 1648: "In the ruling of Lalan Chaudhary ... following the".
Lalita Kumari VS Govt. of U. P. - Crimes (2013): "In Lallan Chaudhary (supra), this Court held as under" (quotes approvingly); also "relied on ... Lallan Chaudhary (supra)".
LALITA KUMARI VS GOVT. OF U. P. - 2013 0 Supreme(UK) 508: "In Lallan Chaudhary (supra), this Court held as under" (quotes approvingly).
Lalita Kumari VS Govt. of U. P. - Crimes (2013): "In Lallan Chaudhary ... held as under"; "relied on ... Lallan Chaudhary (supra)".
Lalita Kumari VS Govt. of U. P. - 2013 8 Supreme 1: "In Lallan Chaudhary (supra), this Court held as under" (quotes approvingly).
Tapas Paul and etc. VS Biplab Kumar Chowdhury - 2014 0 Supreme(Cal) 768: "Referring to the judgment in the case of Lallan Chaudhary".
Shweta Bhadauria VS State of M. P. - 2016 0 Supreme(MP) 717: "re-iterated in Lallan Chaudhary".
Manish Kumar Chouksay VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2017 0 Supreme(MP) 185: "same view was again taken by ... Lallan Chaudhary ... observe[d]".
Waseem Haider VS State of U. P. - 2020 0 Supreme(All) 1374: "reiterated in Lallan Chaudhary".
Jwala Jambuvantrao Dhote VS Commissioner of Police, C. P. Office, Sadar, Nagpur - 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 955: "reiterated in Lallan Chaudhary".
K. V. Bhaskar VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 461: "re-iterated in Lallan Chaudhary".
Kaja Rama Rao VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 1244: "reiterated in Lallan Chaudhary".
L. Shankaramurthy VS State by Lokayuktha Police - 2012 0 Supreme(Kar) 482: Direct citation with full references to Lallan Chaudhary, implying approval.
These entries mention or list precedents (primarily Lallan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, alongside others like Hari Singh, Ramesh Kumari) as supporting authorities without explicit treatment verbs like "followed" or "relied on", but in context of agreement or parallel citation:
A. Rajammal VS Superintendent of Police, Namakkal - Crimes (2009): Lists Lallan Chaudhary among cases supporting the proposition.
A. P. Civil Liberties Committee VS Government of A. P. - 2009 0 Supreme(AP) 43: Mentions/cites Lallan Chaudhary alongside others.
A. P. Civil Liberties Committee VS Government of A. P. - 2009 0 Supreme(AP) 42: Mentions/cites Lallan Chaudhary alongside others.
Rabindranath Satpathy VS Hina Sethy - 2009 0 Supreme(Ori) 261: Lists Lallan Chaudhury with full citations among authorities.
C. Krishnamoorthy VS State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Chennai - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 2962: Lists Lallan Chaudhary among cited cases.
Dharmarajan VS State of Kerala - 2014 0 Supreme(Ker) 219: Lists Lallan Chaudhary among cases.
VIVEK GARG VS STATE - 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 3906: Lists Lallan Chaudhary among authorities.
Govind Raju Sami VS State of Telangana - 2019 0 Supreme(Telangana) 11: Provides detailed citations for Lallan Chaudhary (multiple volumes).
These entries lack clear indicators of judicial treatment for any specific precedent (no keywords/phrases matching common patterns; either no cases mentioned or purely procedural/narrative without treatment language):
Sohan Lal Singharia VS State of Rajasthan - 2007 0 Supreme(Raj) 849: Describes revision petition outcome and quashing by Sessions Judge; no precedent treatment indicated.
L. Shankaramurthy VS State, Lokayuktha Police, City Division, Bangalore - Crimes (2012): States general principle ("police officer ... duty bound to register"); no case cited or treatment.
Ramesh VS State (N. C. T. of Delhi) - 2006 2 Supreme 243: Notes "Important point" on statutory duty under Section 154 CrPC; no case cited or treatment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
