Legal Edge

Facts: The facts of the case are that the informant Shri Vikas Kumar Jha gave a fardbeyan to the effect that at about 5.00 P.M. on 23.7.2005, he had received a call on his telephone number inquiring about his elder brother Shri Anil Kumar Jha. The informant stated before the police that his elder brother, the owner of a medical store, on the said date had been out of town. He submitted that he had communicated the same to the caller. Upon such reply, the caller disclosed himself as Mohan Singh, the appellant herein, and asked the informant to send him Rs.50,000/-. The informant submitted that he had similar conversations with the caller three to four times in the past. The caller threatened him that since the demand of money had not been fulfilled, the informant should be ready to face the consequences. Upon his elder brother’s return, the informant had narrated the events to him. However, his elder brother did not take the threat seriously. Later, the informants elder brother and thei...

  Facts: An FIR was lodged by one Pushpa on 22.3.1997, against the appellant stating that the appellant had raped her on 10.3.1997. In view thereof, an investigation ensued and the appellant was medically examined. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the Deputy Superintendent, wherein she narrated the incident of how Ajay Parmar raped her and kept her hostage without food and water. Moreover, she then tried to commit suicide but was saved by Prakash Sen and Vikram Sen and then, eventually, after a lapse of about 10 days, the complaint in question was handed over to the SP, Sirohi. Subsequently, she herself appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi on 9.4.1997, and moved an application before him stating that, although she had lodged an FIR under Section 376/342 IPC, the police were not investigating the case in a correct manner and, therefore, she wished to make her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. T...

  Facts: The son of the appellant was a Major in the Indian Army. His dead body was found on 23.8.2003 at Mathura Railway Station. The G.R.P, Mathura investigated the matter and gave a detailed report on 29.8.2003 stating that the death was due suicide. The claim for suicide was upheld by the domestic servant and gang-man, who said the deceased was never happy. But the appellant alleged the case was of murder because the deceased got to know about corruption in Army, hence, he was killed. The appellant made request to Army Court to look into the matter but they declared it to suicide. Hence, the appeal is filed to order Central Bureau of Investigation (in short “CBI”) to investigate the matter.  Issue: Whether the CBI enquiry can be initiated in the present case? Ratio Decidendi: The court stated that CBI enquiry cannot be conducted by stating, CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi [(1996) 11 SCC 253] that no one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency. An aggrieved p...

  Facts: On 18-2-1988, the appellant filed a complaint against the three respondents, who are her husband, father-in-law and mother-in law respectively, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra alleging commission of offences under Sections 498- A (Cruelty) and 406 (Criminal Breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) by them. On that complaint the learned Magistrate passed an order under Section 156(3) ( Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case)  of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Code" for short) directing the police to register a case and investigate into the same. Pursuant to the said direction Thaneswar Police Station registered a case being FIR No. 61 of 1988 and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet (police report) against the three respondents under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the said charge-sheet and thereafter framed charge against the three respondents under Section 406 ...