SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(SC) 265

DIPAK MISRA, PRAFULLA C.PANT
Priyanka Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points to consider:

  1. When a case arising from a complaint petition reaches a higher court and an adverse order is issued, the higher court must provide an opportunity for the parties to be heard before passing the order (!) .

  2. An order under section 156(3) of the CrPC must be based on the magistrate’s application of his or her mind, and cannot be issued by simply narrating allegations without proper scrutiny (!) .

  3. While exercising powers under section 156(3), the magistrate should exercise caution, especially when proceedings are already underway under statutes like SARFAESI or the Recovery of Debts Act, to prevent misuse and ensure procedural propriety (!) (!) .

  4. Applications under section 156(3) should be supported by an affidavit detailing the provisions of sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC, and the magistrate should verify the veracity of such affidavits to prevent abuse of process (!) (!) .

  5. The magistrate must consider the protections provided under section 32 of the SARFAESI Act, which safeguards actions taken in good faith, before directing the registration of an FIR under section 156(3) (!) .

  6. The registration of an FIR under section 154 of the CrPC is mandatory when information discloses a cognizable offence; the police officer is bound to record the information and proceed accordingly (!) (!) .

  7. The scope of section 156(3) allows a magistrate to direct investigation without taking cognizance of an offence, but such directions must be issued after proper application of mind, and not routinely or without due scrutiny (!) (!) .

  8. The magistrate exercising powers under section 156(3) should ensure that the application is supported by a sworn affidavit, and verify the truthfulness of allegations to avoid unwarranted investigations and harassment (!) (!) (!) .

  9. The process of invoking section 156(3) must be undertaken with caution, especially when proceedings are already pending under other statutory remedies, to prevent misuse for harassment or undue pressure (!) (!) .

  10. The courts emphasize that applications under section 156(3) should not be filed as a routine, and that prior compliance with sections 154(1) and 154(3) is necessary. The magistrate must exercise vigilance and ensure due diligence before issuing directions for investigation (!) (!) .

  11. The legal provisions protect actions taken in good faith, and the magistrate must keep this in mind before directing registration of an FIR, to prevent unwarranted criminal proceedings against authorized officers or creditors (!) (!) .

  12. Overall, the courts advocate for a cautious, well-reasoned approach in exercising powers under section 156(3), emphasizing the importance of application of judicial mind, verification of facts, and safeguarding statutory protections against abuse of process (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance on specific aspects.


JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

The present appeal projects and frescoes a scenario which is not only disturbing but also has the potentiality to create a stir compelling one to ponder in a perturbed state how some unscrupulous, unprincipled and deviant litigants can ingeniously and innovatively design in a nonchalant manner to knock at the doors of the Court, as if, it is a laboratory where multifarious experiments can take place and such skillful persons can adroitly abuse the process of the Court at their own will and desire by painting a canvas of agony by assiduous assertions made in the application though the real intention is to harass the statutory authorities, without any remote remorse, with the inventive design primarily to create a mental pressure on the said officials as individuals, for they would not like to be dragged to a court of law to face in criminal cases, and further pressurize in such a fashion so that financial institution which they represent would ultimately be constrained to accept the request for “one-time settlement” with the fond hope that the obstinate defaulters who had borrowed money from it would withdraw the cases instituted against them. The facts, as
























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top