top of page


Updated: May 4


Landmark judgment on CrPC Topics:-


Shivjee Singh v. Nagendra Tiwari, AIR 2010 SC 2261

Provisions of the Code are to be interpreted in light of recognized principles of construction that procedural laws are meant for doing substantial justice.

Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Assn. v. Union of India, (2016) 14 SCC 536

Other enactments which prescribe procedure would not be affected by the CrPC if such statute specifically provides for the applicable procedure and derogates from the Code. 


Sharad Hiru Kolambe v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 18 SCC 718

Default sentences must be in excess of or in addition to the substantive sentence. Concurrent running of default sentence inter se or with substantive sentence is not permissible

Gagan Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2019) 5 SCC 154 

The Supreme Court held that it is a mandatory legal requirement to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.

Premnath v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1599

A civil judge cannot be invested with the powers of Additional Sessions Judge unless he is appointed as Additional Sessions Judge under Section 9 of the Code.


State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar, (2008) 3 SCC 222 

Custody and arrest are not synonymous terms. In every arrest there is custody but not vice-versa. Custody may amount to arrest in certain cases but not in all cases.

Custody is physical control or presence of the accused in court coupled with submission to the jurisdiction of the court. A person can be in custody when police arrest him or when he surrenders before the court.

Joginder Kumar v. State of UP., (1994) 4 SCC 260

The registration of FIR and arrest of accused persons are two different things. It is not correct to say that merely because an FIR is registered the accused can be arrested. 

Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1983) 2 SCC 96

The Supreme Court held that the accused person must be informed by the Magistrate about his right to be medically examined. 

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273

Police officers were directed not to automatically arrest where a case is registered under Section 498-AIPC and also in cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to 7. They have to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down in Section 41, Cr. P.C


D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 6 SC 642

Guidelines for arrest:

  1. The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation should bear an accurate and clear identification mark with their designation. 

  2. The police officer carrying out the arrest shall prepare the memo of arrest which shall be attested by at least one witness. 

  3.  Arrested person shall be entitled to have his friend or relative to be informed of his arrest.

  4. He must be aware of his right to have someone being informed of his arrest. 

  5. The arrestee must be examined at the time of arrest and every major or minor injury must be recorded.

  6. The arrestee should be subject to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours.

  7. The copies of all documents including memo of arrest should be sent to the Magistrate for record.

  8. The arrestee must be produced before Magistrate within 24 hours.

  9. He must be permitted to meet a lawyer during interrogation. 

  10. Police control room should be provided at every district and Stale Headquarters.

Delhi Judicial Services Association v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406

Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines for arresting a judicial officer:- 

  1.  A judicial officer should be arrested for any offence only under the intimation to the District Judge or the High Court.

  2. In case of necessity for immediate arrest only a technical or formal arrest may be effected.

  3.  The fact of the arrest should be immediately communicated to the District and Sessions Judge and the Chief Justice of the High Court. 

  4. The judicial officer shall not be taken to the police station, without the prior order or directions of the District and Sessions Judge of the concerned district.

  5. The judicial officer shall not be taken to the police station, without the prior order or directions of the District and Sessions Judge of the concerned district.

  6. Immediate facilities should be provided to the judicial officer for communication with his family members, legal advisers and judicial officers. 

  7. No statement of judicial officer who is under arrest should be recorded nor any punchnama be drawn up nor any medical tests be conducted except in the presence of the legal advisor of the judicial officer.


Nanak Chandra v. Chandra Kishore, (1969) 3 SCC 802

Provisions contained in Sections 125-128 are applicable to all persons belonging to all religions and have no relationship with personal law of the parties.

Yamunabai v. Anantrao, AIR 1988 SC 644

The term wife’ means legally wedded wife. Second wife cannot claim maintenance.

Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and Anr,

The Supreme Court held that a wife, who has been divorced by the husband, on the ground that the wife has deserted him, is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

D. Velusamy v. D Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469

Women who are in a marriage-like relationship, though not legally married, can claim maintenance. The court held that not all live-in-relationships will amount to relationships in the nature of marriage. ‘Relationship in nature of marriage’ must fulfil following conditions:-

  1. The couple must hold themselves out to society as akin ' to spouses;

  2. They must be of legal age to marry;

  3. They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage;

  4. They must have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period of time. 

Vijay Manoharv. Kashi Rao Raja Ram, AIR 1987 SC 1100

Daughter whether (married or not) would also be liable to pay maintenance. 

Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 

In deciding the quantum of maintenance of the wife under Section 125 CrPC the wife is entitled in law to lead life in a similar manner as he would have lived in house with her husband. It is a statutory obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become destitute. 


Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamala Devi, (1975) 2 SCC 386 

Supreme Court laid down following objectives of Section 125 of the Code:- 

  1.  The remedy under Section 125 is speedier and economical than the remedy enforced by way of civil courts. So, it will be beneficial for needy persons.

  2. . It aims at preventing destitution and vagrancy leading to commission of crime. 

 V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot, (2012) 3 SCC 183 

The extension of definition of wife’ to cover divorced wives is intended to prevent unscrupulous husbands from frustrating the legitimate claims of the wives by divorcing them. This explanation is aimed at securing social justice to women belonging to poorer classes.

Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, AIR 1985 SC 945

The Supreme Court held that there is no conflict between Section 125 and Muslim personal law. The court observed that Muslim personal law limits the liability of the husband to maintain the divorced wife till the period of iddat. If the divorced wife is able to maintain herself the husband’s liability expires after the period of iddat.

However, if the divorced wife is unable to maintain herself she is entitled to take recourse to Section/125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 125 applies to divorced Muslim women until she remarries.

Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor, (2020) 13 SCC172

Court after passing judgement or final order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not become functus officio. Section 125 itself contains provisions where order passed can be cancelled or altered. It is covered by an exception contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C

Preventive Action 

Anita Thakur v. State of J&K, (2016) 15 SCC 525 

Before ordering for use of force to disperse unlawful assembly, Magistrate needs to satisfy himself that :-

  1. There is an unlawful assembly with object of committing violence or assembly of five or more persons likely to cause disturbance to public peace;

  2. Executive Magistrate must order for unlawful assembly to disperse; and

  3. Even after such an order unlawful assembly does not m disperse. 

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India,(2020) 3 SCC 637

Orders passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. have direct consequences upon fundamental rights. Magistrate is duty bound to balance the rights and restrictions based on principles of proportionality and thereafter apply less intrusive measures.


 H.N. Rishbud V. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196

The investigation of offence generally consists of- 

  1. proceeding on the spot;

  2. ascertainment of facts and circumstances of the case;

  3. discovery and arrest of offence;

  4. collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence. It may consist of examination of various persons and search and seizure of various things. 

  5. formation of opinion whether on the basis of materials collected the accused has committed the offence or not.

State of Orissa v. Sharat Chandra Sahu, (1996) 6 SCC 435

While investigating a cognizable offence, police are not ’ debarred from investigating any non-cognizable offence arising from the same facts.

Ishwar Pratap Singh v. State of UP., (2018) 13 SCC 612

No external agency can dictate the course of investigation in a criminal case. It is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the police. Courts cannot supervise investigation. Only in exceptional circumstances superior courts can monitor investigation but that is not the same as supervision.

Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 1 

The ultimate aim of all investigation and inquiry, whether by the police or by the Magistrate, is to ensure that those who have actually committed a crime are correctly booked. It is the hovering omnipresence of Article 21 over Cr.P.C. that must inform the interpretation of all provisions of Cr.P.C. so as to ensure that Article 21 is followed in both letter and spirit.

Mukesh Singh vs State (NCT of Delhi), 2023

Conduct of Test Identification Parade is not violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India - What is prohibited by Article 20(3) of the Constitution is procuring by compulsion of the positive volitional evidentiary acts of an accused. It is true that an accused may be said to be compelled to attend a test identification parade, but this compulsion does not involve any positive volitional evidentiary act.

His mere attendance or the exhibition of his body at a test identification parade even though compelled, does not result in any evidentiary act until he is identified by some other agency.

The identification of him by a witness is not his act, even though his body is exhibited for the purpose. His compelled attendance at a test identification parade is comparatively remote to the final evidence and cannot be said by itself to furnish any positive volitional evidentiary act.


First Information Report

Nand Lal And Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023)

The immediate lodging of an FIR removes suspicion with regard to over implication of number of persons, particularly when the case involved a fight between two groups. When the parties are at loggerheads, the immediate lodging of the FIR provides credence to the prosecution case.

State of UP. v. Raghuvir, (2018) 13 SCC 732 

Delay in lodging FIR is normally viewed with suspicion because of possibility of concoction and courts subject the evidence with close scrutiny. 

Satpal v. State of Haryana, (2018) 6 SCC 610 

FIR is not an encyclopaedia requiring every minute details of occurrence to be mentioned therein. 

Motiram Padu Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 9 SCC 429

Omission as to the names of assailants or witnesses may not at all times be fatal to the prosecution if the FIR is lodged without delay.

Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat, (1973) 3 SCC 114

Even a telephonic message if it discloses a cognizable offence may constitute FIR.

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

The word ‘information’ in Section 154 is not qualified by the term ‘reasonable’. By omitting the word ‘reasonable’ and ‘credible’ the intent of legislature is clear that no discretion is given to the police to lodge the FIR

Lalita Kumari v. Govt, of Uttar Pradesh, 2013(13) SCALE 559   

Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is needed in such a situation. However, in certain types of cases preliminary inquiry can be conducted before registration of FIR. These cases are:-

  1.  Matrimonial/family disputes

  2.  Commercial offences

  3. Medical negligence cases

  4. Corruption cases

  5. Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal proceedings

Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 673

The object of insisting upon prompt registration of FIR is to obtain early information not only regarding the accused but also about the part played by the accused, nature of incident and name of witnesses.

Statements Made to Police

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, (1978) 2 SCC 424

Area covered by Article 20(3) and Section 161(2) is substantially the same and Section 161(2) is a parliamentary gloss on the constitutional clause. 

Raghunandan v. State of U.P., (1974) 4 SCC 186

Section 162 is limited in its scope to the use of parties only. A court can ask any question whether in the nature of corroboration or contradiction under Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act. Section 162 does not control Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act

 Harbir Singh v. Sheeshpal, (2016) 16 SCC418

Delay in recording statements of witnesses does not / necessarily discredit their testimonies. The court may rely on such testimonies if they are cogent and credible and delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court. 

Virender Singh v. State of Haryana, (2017) 11 SCC 126

Statement recorded under Section 161 does not constitute evidence that can be relied upon by the court to convict the accused in absence of substantive evidence.

Raghu Nandan v. State of U.P., (1974) 4 SCR 186

The court while examining the person as court witness under Section 311 of the Code or asking any question to any witness under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, may make use of previous statements and restrictions put under Section 162 of the Code are not applicable. 

Tehsildar Singh v. State of UP., AIR 1959 SC 1012

Significant omissions in statements before the police during the course of investigation are deemed to be part of the statement and may amount to contradiction.

Virender Singh v. State of Haryana, (2017) 11 SCC 126

Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not constitute evidence and cannot be relied upon by the court to convict an accused in absence of substantive evidence.

Statements Under Section 164

Manoharan v. State, (2020) 5 SCC 782

Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not contemplate that a confession or statement should necessarily be made in presence of advocate except when such a confessional statement is recorded audio video electronic means.

What mandatorily is needed is that the Magistrate must satisfy himself of the voluntariness of the statement and all the statutory safeguards are meticulously complied with.

Somasundaram v. State, (2020) 7 SCC 722 

Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not a substantial piece of evidence. Conviction on the basis of that statement in absence of any substantive evidence in court against the accused would be impermissible. 


Remand and Default Bail

Hussainara Khatoon (5) v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 108

It is the duty of the Magistrate to inform the accused that he has a right to be released on bail under Section 167 proviso.

Sanjay Dutt v. State, (1994) 4 SCC 410

Bail granted under Section 167 proviso remains valid till it is cancelled and the receipt of charge-sheet in the court by itself is no ground for cancellation of bail.

Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67

Where the investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, and no police report is filed on 60th or 90th day then the accused gets indefensible right to default bail. The accused must apply for default bail and he should be prepared to furnish bail.

M. Ravindran v. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence 2020 SCC OnLine SC 867 

It was held that once an accused has applied for default bail, the Prosecutor cannot undermine the enforcement of the accused's absolute right by subsequently submitting a final report, additional complaint, or a report seeking an extension of time.

Upon the accused filing an application for bail under the Proviso to Section 167(2), it is considered that he has exercised his right to be released on default bail, which arises after the expiration of the prescribed time limit for investigation.

The entitlement to default bail remains enforceable even if the accused has filed such a bail application, regardless of the pending status of the application or subsequent submission of the chargesheet or a report seeking an extension of time by the prosecution before the court, including during the interim period while a challenge to the denial of the bail application is pending before a higher court.

However, if the accused neglects to apply for default bail when the right accrues, and subsequently a chargesheet, additional complaint, or a report seeking an extension of time is presented before the Magistrate, the right to default bail would be forfeited.

In such a scenario, the Magistrate retains the discretion to take cognizance of the case or grant further time for the completion of the investigation, as deemed appropriate, although the accused may still be eligible for release on bail under other provisions of the CrPC.

Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 616

Right to default bail becomes complete and indefeasible as soon as application for grant of default bail is made on the expiry of the maximum period prescribed before charge-sheet is filed.

Once the application is made the indefensible right cannot be defeated by filing of charge-sheet It can also not be defeated on non-disposal or wrong disposal of the application.

No condition of deposit of any amount involved in the alleged crime can be imposed by the court while granting default bail. Imposition of such conditions would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail. 

Police Report and Further Investigation

Saurav Das vs Union of India (2023)

If all the chargesheets and relevant documents produced along with the chargesheets are put on the public domain or on the websites of the State Governments it will be contrary to the Scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code and it may as such violate the rights of the accused as well as the victim and/or even the investigating agency.

Putting the FIR on the website cannot be equated with putting the chargesheets along with the relevant documents on the public domain and on the websites of the State Governments.

Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI, (2007) 8 SCC 413

So long as the police report is not filed under Section 173(2) the investigation remains pending. The submission of report under Section 173 (2) does not preclude further investigation under Section 173(8). 

Union of India v. Prakash Hinduja, (2003) CrLJ 3117 (SC) 

The formation of opinion whether there is sufficient evidence or reasonable grounds of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the case to the Magistrate or not is to be that of the officer-in-charge of the police station and the Magistrate has no role to play.

Sampat Singh v. State of Haryana, (1993) 1 SCC 561

In case the final report is filed the court should scrutinise the final report and take a decision either to accept or reject it.

Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537

The Supreme Court held that the complaint should be heard before the Magistrate drops the case. 

Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India, AIR 2016 SC 4136

It was held that an accused is entitled to get a copy of the FIR at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of the Cr. P.C. FIR must be uploaded on Police website within 24 hours unless the case is sensitive in nature i.e. like sexual offences : offences pertaining to insurgency , terrorism 

Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India, (2018) 6 SCC 72 

Inquest report is not a substantive piece of evidence. Its purpose is limited to ascertain nature of injuries and cause of death. Its object is to ascertain whether death is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or caused by animals or machinery eta It states the manner in which or by what weapon or instruments injuries appears to have been inflicted.

Ramswaroop Soni v. State of M.P., AIR 2019 SC 3801

The Supreme Court reiterated that a magistrate, upon receipt of a closure/refer report, cannot direct the police to file a charge sheet. Such a direction is wholly unsustainable. 

Neetu Kumar Nagaich v. State of Rajasthan, (2020) 16 SCC 777

In appropriate cases even if the charge-sheet is filed it is open for the Supreme Court or even for the High Court to direct investigation of the case to be handed over to the CBI or to any other independent agency in order to do complete justice. 

Bohatie Devi (Dead) Through LR v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.(2023)

Section 173(3) read with Section 158 does not permit the Secretary (Home) to order for further investigation or reinvestigation by another agency-The order passed by the Secretary (Home) transferring the investigation/ordering further investigation by another agency and that too, on the basis of the application/complaint submitted by mother of the accused is unknown to law - In any case, as it is a case of reinvestigation, the same is not permissible and that too by another agency without the prior permission of the learned Magistrate even while exercising the powers under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.

General Diary and Case Diary

State v. H. Srinivas, (2018) 7 SCC 572

The obligation of maintenance of the General Diary is a part of the course of conduct of the officer concerned. Non Maintenance of General Diary may not itself have any bearing on the criminal trial unless some grave prejudice going to the root of the matter is shown.


Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 5 SCC 384 

Supreme Court held that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, depend on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 4 98A of the Indian Penal Code.



Cardinal Mar George Alencherry vs State of Kerala 2023

As such the phrase “taking cognizance” has nowhere been defined in the Cr.PC, however has been interpreted by this Court to mean “become aware of” or “to take notice of judicially.

M.L. Sethi v. R.L. Kapur, AIR 1967 SC 528

The expression ‘taking cognizance’ has not been defined in the Code. The expression is used to indicate a point when the . The Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiate criminal proceedings.

Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, AIR 2012 SC 1185

The Supreme Court held that cognizance is taking judicial notice by the court of law, possessing jurisdiction, on a matter presented before it so as to decide whether there is any basis for initiating proceedings.

Manhari Bhai v. Shailesh Bhai, (2012) 10 SCC 527

Taking cognizance does not mean issuance of process.

Bholu Ram v. State of Punjab (2008) 9 SCC 140 1

It is a settled law that the court can take cognizance of an offence only and once the cognizance is taken the court becomes functus officio. There can be no recall of order of cognizance. 

Devendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, (2019) 4 SCC 351

The Supreme Court held that in order to attract rigour of Section 197 the offence alleged against a Government Officer must have some nexus with the discharge of his official duties as Government Officer. 

Vishnu Chandra Gaonkar v. N.M. Desai, (2018) 5 SCC 422

Section 195(l)(b)(ii) is applicable only in case the offence enumerated therein have been committed with respect to a document after that document has been produced or given in evidence in a proceedings in any court. That is to say the offence must have been committed when the document was in custodial legis and not prior to that.

K.K. Mishra v. State of M.P., (2018) 6 SCC 676

In order to avail remedy under Section 199(2) and 199(4) statements must not only be defamatory but there has to be a nexus between the statement and the discharge of public duties of office.

P.C. Joshi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 387 

The rationale for special procedure provided under Section 199(2) is that the offence of defamation committed against the functionaries mentioned therein is really an offence committed against the State as the same relates to the discharge of public functions by State functionaries. 

Minu Kumari v. State, AIR 2006 SC 1937

Where the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance and drop the proceedings then notice to the informant and opportunity of hearing must be granted. 

Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar, (2019) 3 SCC 318 

Prosecution can be initiated only by sanction of court under whose proceedings offences referred to in Section 195(1 )(b) CrPC were allegedly committed. Private complaint is not permissible. 

Saloni Arora v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 3 SCC 286.

Procedure prescribed under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is mandatory. Prosecution initiated in absence of such procedure is void ab initio.


Manhari Bhai v. Shailesh Bhai, (2012) 10 SCC 517

Supreme Court held that Section 202 of the Code has following two objects:

  1.  It enables the Magistrate to scrutinise the allegations in the complaint with a view to prevent harassment to the accused. 

  2. It helps the Magistrate to find out whether there is some material to support the allegations in the complaint 

Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru, (2010) 2 SCC 631

The order of dismissal of complaint is neither an order of acquittal nor an order of discharge, therefore, principle incorporated under Section 300 is not applicable. The Supreme Court held that only in exceptional circumstances the second complaint can be entertained. These circumstances may be

  1. Previous order of dismissal was passed on incomplete record; 

  2. Previous order was result of misunderstanding of the nature of complaint or was manifestly absurd or unjust;

  3. Where the new facts are adduced in second complaint which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on record in the previous proceedings.

 S.R.Sukumar v, S.Sunaad Raghuram, (2015) 9 SCC 609

There is no enabling provision in the Code which permits the amendment of complaint. However, Supreme Court held that if the amendment sought to be made relates to a simple infirmity which is curable bv means of a formal amendment and by allowing such amendment, no prejudice could be caused to the other side, then notwithstanding the fact that there is no enabling provision in the Code for entertaining such amendment, the court may permit such s an amendment to be made.

Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar (2017) 3 SCC 528

The requirement of conducting inquiry or directing investigation under Section 202 before the issuing process is not an empty formality. No specific mode or manner of inquiry is provided in Section 202.

In inquiry envisaged under Section 202 the witnesses are examined, whereas, under Section 200, examination of the complainant only is necessary with the option of examining the witnesses,.if any.

Chand Devi Daga v. Manju K. Humatani, (2018)1 SCC 71 

Legal heirs of deceased complainant have the right to continue proceedings after the death of the complainant in a warrant case.

Samta Naidu v. State of M.P., (2020) 5 SCC 378

An order of dismissal under Section 203 Cr.P.C. is no bar to entertainment of second complaint on the same facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances i.e. where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on misunderstanding of nature of complaint or it was manifestly absurd or where new facts which could not have been brought on record despite due diligence. 

Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel, (2017) 4 SCC 177 

Direction of investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is in the nature of an inquiry to derive satisfaction as to whether the proceedings initiated ought to be furthered or not. Such direction is not in the nature of further investigation as contemplated under Section 173(8).


Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 623

The object of furnishing the accused person with copies of the statements and documents as mentioned above is to put him on notice of what he has to meet at the time of inquiry or trial and to prepare himself for his defence.

Prabhu Dutt Tiwari v. State of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 609 

At the stage of summoning accused on the basis of a private complaint, all that is required is satisfaction by Magistrate, that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accusecU x in the light of the records made and the evidence adduced by the accused.


State v. Anup Kumar Srivastava, (2017) 15 SCC 560

Framing of charge is the first major step in the criminal trial where the court is expected to apply its mind to evidence placed before it and consider the possibility of discharging the accused or requiring him to face trial.

At the stage of framing of charge the trial court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials produced by prosecution or sufficiency of material to establish offence alleged. Where the court finds that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed offence, it shall frame the charge.

This presumption is not the presumption of law as such. 

At this stage there cannot be a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter. 

V. C. Shukla v. State, AIR 1980 SC 962

The charge serves as a purpose of notice or intimation to the accused, giving a clear and unambiguous notice of the nature of accusation. It is to enable the accused to have a clear idea of what he is being tried for. It is an important step in criminal trial and it separates the stage of inquiry from trial.

Jaswinder Saini v. State (Govt, of NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 256

The Code gives ample power to the court to alter or amend a charge whether by the trial court or by the appellate court. 

Nitya Dharmanand v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy, (2018) 2 SCC 93

At the stage of framing of charge the accused cannot ordinarily invoke Section 91 of the Code. However, the court is not debarred from exercising the power under Section 91 in the interest of justice.

The court has to be satisfied that the material available with the investigator, not made part of the charge-sheet, has crucial bearing on the issue of framing of charge.

Thus, ordinarily the court has to proceed on the basis of the material produced with the charge-sheet for framing of charge but if the court is satisfied that the investigator has withheld certain documents important from the point of view of ensuring justice then court is not debarred from summoning the same.

State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad Yadav, (2017) 8 SCC 1

Separate trial is a rule and joint trial is an exception. Joint trial would be improper if the court allows innumerable offences spread over a long period of time and committed by a large number of persons to be tried jointly under the protective wings of an all-embracing conspiracy. 

Mala Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 5 SCC 127

A combined reading or Sections 216,386 and 464 of CrPC would reveal that an alteration of charge where no prejudice is caused to the accused or the prosecution is well within the powers and jurisdiction of the court including appellate court .

It is only when any omission to frame charge initially or till culmination of the proceedings or at the appellate stage results in failure of justice or causes prejudice, the same may result in vitiating the trial in appropriate cases. 

Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy v. State of A.P., (2020) 12 SCC 467

The alteration and addition of a charge maybe done, if in the opinion of the court there was omission in the framing of charge or if upon prima fade examination of the materials brought on record, it leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence. The test to be adopted by the court is that the material brought on record needs to have a direct link or nexus with the ingredients of alleged offence. 

Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam, (2020)2 SCC217

At the time of framing of charge only the prima fade case is to be seen. Whether the case is beyond reasonable doubt is not to be seen at this stage. Court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Judge is not required to write detailed reasons as to why such a charge is framed. 



Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar, 1979 CrLJ 154 (SC)

While considering the question of framing of charges under Section 227 the court has power to sift and weigh the evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether or not prima facie case against the accused has been made out.

Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 15 SCC 470 

Fair trial includes fair investigation as envisaged under Article 20 and 21. The role of police is to be one for protectors of life, liberty and property. The aim of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and to bring the offender to book. 

Harchand Singh v. State of Haryana, (1974) SCR (1) 583 

Trial can be defined as proceeding to determine guilt or innocence of the accused. Trial always ends in either acquittal or conviction. The purpose of trial is to find out whether the accused is guilty or not. 

Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 1

Trial commences when charges are framed and not when the cognizance is taken.

Dattatraya v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 14 SCC 290 

If the court intends to impose a death sentence then such a suggestion should be made to the accused at the stage of Section 235(2) so as to enable the accused to make effective representation against the death sentence by placing mitigating circumstances before the court.

Manoj Suryavanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 4 SCC 451

Hearing of the accused on the same day when conviction is recorded would not vitiate the award of death sentence if an otherwise sufficient opportunity has been given to the accused to put forward his case on issue of sentence. 


Khatri(2) v. State of Bihar, (1981) 1 SCC 627

Constitutional obligation to provide free legal aid does not arise only when the trial commences but when the accused is for the first time produced before a Magistrate and also when he is remanded from time to time.

Suk Das v. Union Territory of ArunachaL Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 911

Conviction of an accused ordered in a trial in which the accused was not provided legal aid has to be set aside as being in violation of Article 21. 

Mohd. Azmai Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC1

It is the duty of the Magistrate and courts to inform the indigent accused about his right to get free legal aid. 

Pritam Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 415 

The provisions of Section 300 are also based on the principle of res-judicata, or issue estoppel. It means the verdict of acquittal given by a competent court, will be binding on the parties to the adjudication in all subsequent proceedings. 

State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad Yadav, (2017) 8 SCC 1

Article 20(2) of the Constitution stipulates that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This is called the doctrine of double jeopardy. The objective of this Article is to avoid harassment which may be caused by the successive criminal proceedings, where a person has committed only one crime.

It is based on the maxim nemo debet bis vexari, which means no person shall be put twice in peril for the same offence. There are two aspects of doctrine of double jeopardy i.e. Autrefois convict and autrefois acquit.

Autrefois convict means a person has been previously convicted in respect of the same offence. Autrefois acquit means that the person has been previously acquitted in respect of the same offence. 


The process enshrined is not a matter of procedural formality but is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice, i.e., audi alterum partem. The ultimate test when concerned with the compliance of the Section is to enquire and ensure whether the accused got the opportunity to say his piece.

Edmund S. Lyngdoh v. State of Meghalaya, (2016) 15 SCC 572

Conviction of the accused cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the statements under Section 313. Such statements are only the version of the accused stating the incriminating circumstances against him. Such statements must not be considered in isolation but in conjunction with other prosecution evidence . 

Basavarai Pillai v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 8 SCC 740

The term ‘personally used in Section 313 if given strict and restrictive interpretation would mean that the accused had to be physically present in the court. This section has to be considered in light of the changes in technology of communications and transmission. Accordingly the court held that it was not necessary that in all cases the accused must answer by remaining present in the court. 

Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023

The Bench summarised the well settled principles as under -

a. section 313, Cr. P.C. [clause (b) of sub-section 1] is a valuable safeguard in the trial process for the accused to establish his innocence;

b. section 313, which is intended to ensure a direct dialogue between the court and the accused, casts a mandatory duty on the court to question the accused generally on the case for the purpose of enabling him to personally explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him;

c. when questioned, the accused may not admit his involvement at all and choose to flatly deny or outrightly repudiate whatever is put to him by the court;.

d. the accused may even admit or own incriminating circumstances adduced against him to adopt legally recognized defences;

e. an accused can make a statement without fear of being cross-examined by the prosecution or the latter having any right to cross-examine him;

f. the explanations that an accused may furnish cannot be considered in isolation but has to be considered in conjunction with the evidence adduced by the prosecution and, therefore, no conviction can be premised solely on the basis of the section 313 statement(s);

g. statements of the accused in course of examination under section 313, since not on oath, do not constitute evidence under section 3 of the Evidence Act, yet, the answers given are relevant for finding the truth and examining the veracity of the prosecution case;

h. statement(s) of the accused cannot be dissected to rely on the inculpatory part and ignore the exculpatory part and has/have to be read in the whole, inter alia, to test the authenticity of the exculpatory nature of admission; and

i. if the accused takes a defence and proffers any alternate version of events or interpretation, the court has to carefully analyse and consider his statements;

j. any failure to consider the accused’s explanation of incriminating circumstances, in a given case, may vitiate the trial and/or endanger the conviction.

Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92

Supreme Court laid down following guidelines with respect to Section 319:-

  1. The word ‘evidence’ has to be broadly understood and it must not be restricted to the evidence brought during trial. Materials coming before the court in course of inquiries can be used for corroboration of the evidence recorded in the court after the trial commences for the exercise of Section 319. 

  2.  The ‘evidence’ need not be tested by cross-examination. The power can be exercised even on the basis of examination-in-chief.

  3. The degree of satisfaction required for summoning the person under Section 319 is same as that of framing of charge.

  4.  A person not named in FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been charge-sheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319.

Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368 

The Supreme Court held that a trial court can summon under Section 319 those persons named in FIR, but who were not charge-sheeted, even if the stage of giving opportunity to the complainant to file a protest petition is over.

Amir Hamza Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) 8 SCC 357

The Supreme Court held that though the Magistrate is not bound to grant permission to a victim to conduct prosecution at the mere asking but the victim has a right to assist the court in a trial before the Magistrate. If the magistrate is satisfied that the victim is in a position to assist the court and the trial does not involve such complexities which cannot be handled by the victim, the magistrate would be within its jurisdiction to grant permission to the victim.

Sheodan Paswan. State of Bihar, (1987)1 SCC 288

When an application under Section 321 is made it is not necessary for the court to assess the evidence to discover whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The court has to see whether the application is made in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice and not to thwart or stifle the process of law.

Abdul Karim v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 8 SCC 710

Withdrawal from prosecution cannot be allowed when it will stifle or thwart the process of law or cause manifest injustice.

Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. CBI, (2019) 14 SCC 328

The Supreme Court observed that filing of successive applications for recall of a witness under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be encouraged. 

Bhagwan Das v. State uttarakhand, (2019) 4 SCC 354

The Supreme Court observed that a court has discretion to reject a plea to compound an offence having social impact, even if the offence is compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

Ajay Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2017) 3 SCC 330 

A trial judge should remember that he has immense responsibility as he has the lawful duty to record the evidence in the prescribed manner keeping in mind the command postulated in Section 309 Cr.P.C. and pronounce the judgement as provided under the Code.



Gurucharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179

Two paramount considerations for granting bail are likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and tampering with the evidence. It is essential that due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others.

Prasad Srikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458

Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. At the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence need not be undertaken. Following factors should be considered before granting bail:-

  1. The nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction

  2. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to complainant.

  3. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charges.

Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129

Relevant consideration for grant of bail 

  1.  Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed offence;

  2.  Nature and gravity of the charge; 

  3. Severity of punishment in event of conviction;

  4.  Danger of accused absconding or fleeing; 

  5. Character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

  6. Likelihood of offence being repeated;

  7. Reasonable apprehension of witness being tampered with;

  8.  Danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

Mauji Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 8 SCC 17

The Supreme Court reiterated that bail cannot be granted without assigning any reason as to on what grounds, even though of a prima facie nature, it is considered just and proper to grant bail. 

Union of India v. Padam Narain, (2008) 13 SCC 305

The term ‘anticipatory bail’ has not been defined in the Code. The bail is granted in anticipation of arrest. When anticipatory bail is granted then in the event of arrest the person arrested is released on bail. Only after arrest the order granting anticipatory bail becomes operative. 

Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565

Supreme Court laid down following principles in respect of anticipatory bail:-

  • Registration of FIR is not a condition precedent to exercise the power under Section 438; 

  • Interim order can be passed without notice to the Public Prosecutor but before passing the final order notice must be given;

  • Order under Section 438 would not affect the right of police to conduct investigation;

  • Where a case has been made for remand under Section 167(2) or reasonable claim to secure incriminating material under section 27 of the Evidence Act, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised

  • Blanket order of anticipatory bail should not be made.

Sushila Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2020) SCC OnLine SC98

The protection granted to a person under Section 438 Cr.PC should not invariably be limited to a fixed period; it should be in favour of the accused without any restriction on time. The conditions can be imposed by the concerned court while granting pre-arrest bail order including limiting the operation of the order in relation to a period of time if the circumstances so warrant, more particularly the stage at which the anticipatory bail application is moved.

The life or duration of an anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court, or when charges are framed, but can continue till the end of the trial. If there are any special or peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so. 

Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 5 SCC 421

Section 438 CrPC cannot be considered to be an integral part of Article 21. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. It cannot be considered to be an essential ingredient of Article 21 and its non-application to a certain special category of offences cannot be considered as violative of Article 21.

Raghubir v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481 

Supreme Court laid down the following circumstances where the bail can be cancelled:-

  • Hampers investigation; 

  • Tampers with evidence;

  • Commits same or similar offence; 

  • Absconds or goes beyond the control of sureties;

  • Misuses liberty granted to him;

State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi, (1978) 2 SCC 411

Rejection of bail when bail is applied is one thing and cancellation of bail is another. It is easier to reject a bail in non-bailable cases than to cancel the bail once granted. Cancellation of bail involves reviewing the earlier decision granting bail. It should be sparingly exercised and only in supervening circumstances. 

X v. State of Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511 

Rejection of bail in non-bailable cases at the initial stages and cancellation of bail so granted have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for order directing cancellation of bail. Bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical and routine manner. Supervening circumstances should be considered before cancelling bail. 

Inherent Powers

Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2023

Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised with care and caution and sparingly. To wit, exercise of the said power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of process of law


State represented by The Inspector of Police v. Maridass and Anr, 2023

As per the settled position of law, it is the right conferred upon the Investigating Agency to conduct the investigation and reasonable time should be given to the Investigating Agency to conduct the investigation unless it is found that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence at all or the complaint is barred by any law.

Manik B v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy, 2023

At the stage of deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the High Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the prosecution in the chargesheet. The Court would exercise its power to quash the proceedings only if it finds that taking the case at its face value, no case is made out at all.

The factors which the Court is required to take into consideration, while quashing the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC and while considering an application for discharge are totally different.

Mohammad Wajid v. State of U P, 2023

Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.



Couldn’t Load Comments
It looks like there was a technical problem. Try reconnecting or refreshing the page.
bottom of page