Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: section 154– There can be no second FIR where the information concerns the same cognizable offence alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more cognizable offences- Once an FIR has been recorded, any information received after the commencement of investigation cannot form the basis of a second FIR- bearing situation in which a counter case is filed, a fresh investigation or a second FIR on the basis of the same or connected cognizable offence would constitute an “Abuse of the statutory power of investigation.” (Para 12) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482- Scope of inherent power to quash FIR/Criminal proceedings discussed. (Para 14-20) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal,2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 300- Constitution of India, 1950; Article 20(2)- Principle of Double Jeopardy- The accused-respondent No. 2 having gone through the trial in relation to offences under sections 504 and 506 IPC and having been acquitted, cannot be subjected to another trial for the same charges on the same facts. Any such process would be in blatant disregard of the settled principles which disapproved double jeopardy and are precisely contained in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India as also section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Ms. P XXX v. State of Uttarakhand,AIR 2022 SC 2885.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 401- Sub-section(3) of section 401 Cr.P.C. prohibits/bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction- if the order of acquittal has been passed by the trial court and even direct retrial. However, if the order of acquittal is passed by the first appellate court, in that case, the High has two options available, (i) to remit the matter to the first appellate Court to rehear the appeal; or (ii) in an appropriate case remit the matter to the trial Court for retrial. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 401- Where under the Cr.P.C. an appeal lies, but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person, the High Court has jurisdiction to treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly as per sub-section (5) of section 401 Cr.P.C, However, subject to the High Court being satisfied that such an application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do and for that purpose the High Court has to pass a judicial order, may be a formal order, to treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly. (Para 11) Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, AIR 2022 SC 670.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482- At the stage when the High Court considers a petition for quashing criminal proceedings under section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the allegations in the FIR must be read as they stand and it is only if on the face of the allegations that no offence, as alleged, has been made out, the court may be justified in exercising its jurisdiction to quash. (Para 6) Veena Mittal v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Chapter viii– Powers of the Executive Magistrate to take bond for maintaining security and for keeping the peace and good behavior by the citizens- Procedure explained. (Para 7) Devadassan v. Second Class Executive Magistrate, 2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Part II of First schedule- Copyright Act, 1957– Section 63 of the copyright Act is a cognizance and non-bailable offence. (Para 7) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Part II of First Schedule– if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years and onwards but not more thatn severn years the offence is cognizable offence. Only in a case where the offence is punishable for imprisonment for less thatn three years or with fine only the offence can be said to be noncognizable. (Para-5.3) Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi,2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; section 2 (wa)- Victims right to be heard- A victim within the meaning of Cr.PC cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right ot participate in the proceeding. He/she has a legally vested right ot be heard at every step post the occurance of an offence. Such a victim has unbridled participatory right from the sage of investigation till the culmination of the proceeding in an appeal or revision- where the victims themselves have come forward to participate in a criminal proceeding, they must be accorded with an opportunity of a fair and effective hearing. (Para 24, 2) Jagjeet Singh v, Ashish Misra @ Monu, AIR 2022 SC 1918
![\"\"](\"https://advsaikatrahman.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Artboard-13-100-1024x683.jpg\")
