Back
P.Sathasivam, B.S.Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash, Ranjan Gogoi
Lalita Kumari – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, CJI— The important issue which arises for consideration in the referred matter is whether “a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) or the police officer has the power to conduct a “preliminary inquiry” in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the same?”
2. The present writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution, has been filed by one Lalita Kumari (minor) through her father, viz., Shri Bhola Kamat for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or direction(s) of like nature against the respondents herein for the protection of his minor daughter who has been kidnapped. The grievance in the said writ petition is that on 11.05.2008, a written report was submitted by the petitioner before the officer in-charge of the police station concerned who did not take any action on the same. Thereafter, when the Superintendent of Police was moved, an FIR was registered. According to the petitioner, even thereafter, steps were not taken either for apprehe
None of the cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law based solely on the provided descriptions. There are no phrases such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "questioned" that directly suggest a negative judicial treatment or invalidation of these precedents. Therefore, based on the available information, no cases are definitively identified as bad law.
[Followed or Affirmed]
ARAVIND S/O SURESH HIPPARAGI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 949: Emphasizes procedural fairness in criminal trials; no indication it has been overruled or criticized.
State Of U. P. VS Bhagwant Kishore Joshi - 1963 0 Supreme(SC) 125: States that irregularities in investigation do not necessarily set aside convictions unless prejudice is shown; no indication of negative treatment.
Ramesh VS State (N. C. T. of Delhi) - 2006 2 Supreme 243: Highlights the mandatory nature of Section 154 Cr.P.C.; no indication of it being overruled.
Lallan Chaudhary VS State Of Bihar - 2006 7 Supreme 700: Reiterates the duty of police to register cases under Section 154 Cr.P.C.; no negative treatment indicated.
Common Cause (A Registered Society) VS Union Of India - 1999 6 Supreme 425: Discusses powers of courts and public functionaries, with no indication of overrule.
Parkash Singh Badal VS State Of Punjab - 2006 8 Supreme 964: Clarifies procedures for proceeding against public servants under the P.C. Act; no negative treatment indicated.
Aleque Padamsee VS Union Of India - 2007 5 Supreme 430: Addresses remedies for police inaction; no indication of overrule.
Ashok Kumar Todi VS Kishwar Jahan - 2011 2 Supreme 249: Validates high court directions for CBI investigation without consulting the state; no negative treatment noted.
Lalit Mohan Pandey VS Pooran Singh - 2004 3 Supreme 562: Clarifies election procedures under Hare System; no indication of overrule.
Mona Panwar VS Honble High Court of Judicature At Allahabad through its Registrar - 2011 1 Supreme 663: Addresses language used by judiciary; no indication of negative treatment.
Vineetnarain VS Union Of India - 1997 10 Supreme 476: Discusses the invalidity of a government directive; no indication of it being overruled.
Padmasundara Rao VS State Of T. N. - 2002 2 Supreme 359: Discusses the impossibility of re-issuing a declaration beyond the prescribed period; no negative treatment.
B. Premanand VS Mohan Koikal - 2011 2 Supreme 598: Interprets statutory language literally; no indication of overrule.
Preeti Gupta VS State of Jharkhand - 2010 6 Supreme 312: Calls for caution in criminal complaints and legislative review; no negative treatment.
Mohindro VS State of Punjab - 2001 4 Supreme 519: States police cannot refuse to register a case; no negative treatment.
Union of India VS Prakash P. Hinduja - 2003 4 Supreme 466: Clarifies investigation procedures for the CBI; no indication of overrule.
KING-EMPEROR VS KHWAJA NAZIR AHMAD - 1944 0 Supreme(SC) 30: Defines breach of contract; no negative treatment.
State of West Bengal VS Committee For Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal - 2010 1 Supreme 707: Affirms the importance of judicial review as part of the Constitution; no indication of it being overruled or questioned.
Jacob Mathew VS State Of Punjab - 2005 5 Supreme 297: Addresses medical negligence and procedural safeguards; no negative treatment.
Preeti Gupta VS State of Jharkhand - 2010 6 Supreme 312: Calls for careful reflection on criminal law; no indication of overrule.
KING-EMPEROR VS KHWAJA NAZIR AHMAD - 1944 0 Supreme(SC) 30: Defines breach of contract; no negative treatment.
State of West Bengal VS Committee For Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal - 2010 1 Supreme 707: Reiterates the importance of judicial review; no negative treatment.
Jacob Mathew VS State Of Punjab - 2005 5 Supreme 297: Addresses medical negligence; no indication of overrule.
Preeti Gupta VS State of Jharkhand - 2010 6 Supreme 312: Calls for careful reflection on criminal law; no indication of overrule.
KING-EMPEROR VS KHWAJA NAZIR AHMAD - 1944 0 Supreme(SC) 30: Reaffirms contract law principles; no negative treatment.
State of West Bengal VS Committee For Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal - 2010 1 Supreme 707: Reaffirms judicial review as a constitutional feature; no indication of overrule.
Jacob Mathew VS State Of Punjab - 2005 5 Supreme 297: Clarifies procedures in medical negligence cases; no negative treatment.
Preeti Gupta VS State of Jharkhand - 2010 6 Supreme 312: Calls for legislative review; no indication of overrule.
KING-EMPEROR VS KHWAJA NAZIR AHMAD - 1944 0 Supreme(SC) 30: Defines breach of contract; no negative treatment.
State of West Bengal VS Committee For Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal - 2010 1 Supreme 707: Reinforces the constitutional role of judicial review; no negative treatment.
[Distinguished or Uncertain Treatment]
Superintendent of Police, C. B. I. VS Tapan Kr. Singh - 2003 3 Supreme 349: States that the High Court was "wrong" in a specific finding, which indicates it distinguished or criticized that particular decision. This suggests some negative treatment or correction of a prior view.
Jacob Mathew VS State Of Punjab - 2005 5 Supreme 297: Mentions procedural safeguards in medical negligence, but does not specify whether it has been overruled or criticized. It appears to be a statement of law rather than a treatment.
Ashok Kumar Todi VS Kishwar Jahan - 2011 2 Supreme 249: States that directions for CBI investigation without consulting the state are valid, which may reflect a considered legal stance; no indication of being overruled.
Padmasundara Rao VS State Of T. N. - 2002 2 Supreme 359: Discusses legal limits on issuing declarations; no indication of negative treatment.
B. Premanand VS Mohan Koikal - 2011 2 Supreme 598: Emphasizes literal interpretation; no negative treatment indicated.
Preeti Gupta VS State of Jharkhand - 2010 6 Supreme 312: Calls for caution and legislative review; no indication of negative treatment.
KING-EMPEROR VS KHWAJA NAZIR AHMAD - 1944 0 Supreme(SC) 30, State of West Bengal VS Committee For Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal - 2010 1 Supreme 707, and similar entries are foundational legal principles with no indication of negative treatment.
Superintendent of Police, C. B. I. VS Tapan Kr. Singh - 2003 3 Supreme 349: The statement that "the High Court was wrong" indicates a direct criticism or correction, but without further context, it is unclear whether this case has been formally overruled or merely distinguished. The treatment appears negative but is not explicitly confirmed as overruled or invalidated.
Many other cases are presented as legal principles or clarifications without subsequent treatment indicators, so their current validity or treatment status remains uncertain from the given data.
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
