CrPC Section 173 — Police report on completion of investigation

Judgments citing CrPC Section 173

1. Shaik Ilyas @ Mohd Ilyas vs Smt. Morampudi Sai Leela & Anr on 28 March, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana28 Mar 2023

   Case Name: Shaik Ilyas @ Mohd Ilyas vs Smt. Morampudi Sai Leela & Anr on 28 March, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 28 March, 2023 Bench: Justice Lalitha Kanneganti Subject: Motor Accident Claims Appeal Key Legal Propositions 1. Appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act can be disposed of in terms of a Lok Adalat award. 2. Lok Adalat settlements are binding and result in the disposal of the appeal with no order as to costs. 3. Compromise settlements reached in Lok Adalat are enforceable and supersede prior tribunal orders. Judgment Summary Background: This is a Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (MACMA) filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging a decree and order dated 28 July 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad, in O.P. No. 785 of 2006. The appeal was settled during a Lok Adalat proceeding. Held: A. On Settlement via Lok Adalat: Majority View: The appeal was disposed of in terms of the award passed by the Lok Adalat dated 11 February 2023. No order as to costs was passed. Dissenting View: None. B. On Compensation Amount: Majority View: The Lok Adalat awar

2. Bandari Mallaiah vs State Of Telangana on 27 January, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana27 Jan 2023

   Case Name: Bandari Mallaiah vs State Of Telangana on 27 January, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 27 January, 2023 Bench: Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani and Smt. Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Appeal – Murder Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – Delay in FIR – Identification of Accused – Common Intention – Motive Key Legal Propositions 1. Delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) can be examined to assess the genuineness of the prosecution case, but does not automatically invalidate it if adequately explained. 2. In homicide cases, the prosecution must establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and confession statements alone are insufficient without corroborating evidence. 3. The prosecution must prove the common intention between accused persons to commit the offence, and mere motive is insufficient to establish guilt. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arose from a judgment convicting the appellant/accused No.2 under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder. The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with Accused No.1, attacked and killed the deceased due to a di

3. Dr. Nallamilli Trivikram Reddy vs The State of Telangana and Anr. on 26 April, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana26 Apr 2023

   Case Name: Dr. Nallamilli Trivikram Reddy vs The State of Telangana and Anr. on 26 April, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 26 April, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Law – Section 482 Cr.P.C – Quashing of Order – Interim Maintenance – Family Court Proceedings Key Legal Propositions 1. High Courts possess inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash orders. 2. Courts may modify interim maintenance orders passed by Family Courts, balancing equity and fairness. 3. Family Courts should be directed to expedite the disposal of pending maintenance cases. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of an order passed by the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, directing him to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month to the Respondent No. 2/Defacto Complainant. A further prayer was made to suspend the said order. Held: A. On Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Interim Maintenance: Majority View: The Court, exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., deemed it appropriate to modify the interim maintenance amount. The Court directed the Petitioner to

4. Eastern Power Distribution Company of AP Limited vs. Sabella Bhamireddy on 26 December, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh26 Dec 2023

   Case Name: Eastern Power Distribution Company of AP Limited vs. Sabella Bhamireddy on 26 December, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Date of Judgment: 26 December, 2023 Bench: Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao Subject: Electricity Law, Civil Liability, Theft of Energy, Provisional Assessment Key Legal Propositions 1. Civil liability under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 can be determined independently of the criminal proceedings initiated for theft of energy. 2. A Special Court under the Electricity Act is vested with the power to determine civil liability arising from offences under Sections 135 to 139 of the Act. 3. The determination of civil liability can proceed even during the pendency of a criminal case related to the same incident, as the two proceedings are not necessarily interlinked. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant, Eastern Power Distribution Company of AP Limited, filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the order of the Special Court which dismissed its application for determining civil liability in a case of alleged energy theft. The respondent was accused of bypassing the energy meter. A criminal case was registered, an

5. Kusum Sawai vs State & Anr on 16 August, 2023

   High Court of Delhi16 Aug 2023

   Case Name: Kusum Sawai vs State & Anr on 16 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: August 16, 2023 Bench: Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain Subject: Criminal Revision Petition – Section 498A IPC – Dowry Harassment – Framing of Charge – Discharge Key Legal Propositions 1. At the stage of framing of charge, the court must sift the material produced by the prosecution and determine if a strong suspicion exists that the accused committed the offence. It is not a mini-trial. 2. Section 498A IPC complaints are often filed in the heat of the moment and can be used to harass the husband and his relatives; courts must be cautious and scrutinize allegations carefully. 3. General and non-specific allegations of harassment for dowry demands are insufficient to sustain a charge under Section 498A IPC. Specificity and a clear link to dowry demands are required. Judgment Summary Background: The present revision petition challenges the order discharging Respondent No. 2 from charges under Section 498A IPC, stemming from an FIR registered in 2014 based on a complaint alleging cruelty and dowry demands. The petitioner alleged abuse, beatings, and a demand for Rs. 20 lacs for co

6. Sumit Kaushal & Ors vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr on 27 July, 2023

   High Court of Delhi27 Jul 2023

   Case Name: Sumit Kaushal & Ors vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr on 27 July, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: July 27, 2023 Bench: Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain Subject: Criminal Revision Petition – Framing of Charges – Sufficiency of Reasons Key Legal Propositions 1. Trial courts possess the power to assess evidence while considering framing of charges to determine a prima facie case. 2. While detailed reasoning isn’t mandatory, framing of charges requires assigning minimum reasons, especially when based on a charge-sheet. 3. An order framing charges devoid of reasons is unsustainable in law and warrants reconsideration by the trial court. Judgment Summary Background: The present criminal revision petition challenges an order of the trial court framing charges against the petitioners under sections 328/366/394/376/307/506(II) IPC (Sumit Kaushal) and 323/34 IPC (Sujeta & Bhagwan Dass) based on a charge-sheet filed after investigation into a complaint alleging offences including rape and attempt to murder. The petitioners argued the charges were framed without adequate reasoning. Held: A. On Sufficiency of Reasons for Framing Charges: Majority View: The Court held

7. State vs Raju @ Lokpal & Ors on September 21, 2023

   High Court of Delhi

   Case Name: State vs Raju @ Lokpal & Ors on September 21, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: September 21, 2023 Bench: Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain Subject: Criminal Revision Petition – Discharge of Accused – Section 308 IPC – Standard of Proof Key Legal Propositions 1. For an offence under Section 308 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the act was committed with the intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 2. At the stage of framing charges or considering a discharge application, the court must evaluate the material on record to determine if the facts, taken at face value, disclose the existence of all ingredients constituting the alleged offence. 3. A mere injury on the head, without evidence of intent or knowledge to cause culpable homicide, is insufficient to sustain a charge under Section 308 IPC; such cases may fall under Section 323 IPC. Judgment Summary Background: The criminal revision petition challenges the order of the Additional Sessions Judge discharging the respondents from the offence punishable under Sections 308/34 IPC. The respondents were charge-sheeted based on allegations that they inflicted inju

8. Uravashi Fakay vs State of NCT of Delhi on 19 December, 2023

   High Court of Delhi19 Dec 2023

   Case Name: Uravashi Fakay vs State of NCT of Delhi on 19 December, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 19 December, 2023 Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma Subject: Criminal Law, Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994, Procedure under Code of Criminal Procedure Key Legal Propositions 1. Cognizance under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act, 1994 can only be taken on a complaint filed by the Appropriate Authority or a person fulfilling the conditions under Section 28(1)(b) of the Act. 2. A police report (chargesheet) cannot be equated with a complaint under Section 2(d) of the CrPC and cannot be the basis for taking cognizance under the PCPNDT Act. 3. Clubbing of a police report with a complaint case under Section 210 CrPC is impermissible when cognizance cannot be taken on the police report itself, as mandated by Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act. Judgment Summary Background: The petitions under Section 482 CrPC challenged orders taking cognizance of offences under the PCPNDT Act based on a police report (FIR) and subsequent proceedings. The petitioners argued that cognizance could only be taken on a complaint

9. Central Bureau of Investigation vs Kapil Wadhawan & Anr. on 30 May, 2023

   High Court of Delhi30 May 2023

   Case Name: Central Bureau of Investigation vs Kapil Wadhawan & Anr. on 30 May, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 30 May, 2023 Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma Subject: Criminal Law, Bail, Section 167 CrPC, Default Bail, Investigation, Completion of Investigation Key Legal Propositions 1. Completion of investigation, and not merely filing of a chargesheet, is the prerequisite for denying default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. 2. A chargesheet filed without completing the investigation, particularly concerning all named accused and relevant offenses, is considered incomplete for the purpose of Section 167(2) CrPC. 3. Courts must prioritize protecting the fundamental right to personal liberty and interpret penal statutes in a manner that safeguards the rights of the accused. Judgment Summary Background: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a petition seeking quashing of an order granting default bail to Kapil Wadhawan and Dheeraj Wadhawan, accused in a case involving alleged financial fraud and misappropriation of funds amounting to approximately Rs. 34,000 Crores. The CBI argued that the chargesheet was filed within the stipulated time and therefor

10. NAEEM AHMED vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI on 22 December, 2023

    High Court of Delhi22 Dec 2023

    Case Name: NAEEM AHMED vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI on 22 December, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 22.12.2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Criminal Law – Default Bail – NDPS Act – Completeness of Charge Sheet – FSL Report Key Legal Propositions 1. A charge sheet filed without an FSL report does not automatically entitle an accused to default bail under Section 173(2) CrPC. 2. The Supreme Court in *Mohd. Arbaz & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi* granted bail pending consideration of the completeness of a charge sheet without an FSL report, but did not issue a general direction for default bail in such cases. 3. The grant of bail to a co-accused, pending a larger issue before the Supreme Court, does not create a legal precedent entitling other accused to the same relief. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner sought to set aside an order denying default bail in FIR No. 152/2022, registered under Sections 21/29/61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner argued that the charge sheet was filed without an FSL report and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in *Mohd. Arbaz* and the bail granted to co-accused Arif. The State opposed the pe

11. Sunil Sharma vs State & Ors on 20 October, 2023

    High Court of Delhi20 Oct 2023

    Case Name: Sunil Sharma vs State & Ors on 20 October, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: October 20, 2023 Bench: Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain Subject: Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Negligence – Accidental Death – Settlement – Compensation Key Legal Propositions 1. The High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR, but such power should be exercised sparingly and with due caution, particularly when a settlement has been reached between the parties and adequate compensation has been paid. 2. A settlement between the parties, coupled with full compensation to the aggrieved party, is a significant factor considered by the Court while deciding a petition for quashing of an FIR, especially in cases involving accidental death where negligence is alleged. 3. Where the alleged incident is demonstrably an accident and the parties have reached a settlement with full compensation, continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Judgment Summary Background: The present petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 0067/2019 registered under Sections 287/304A IPC at P.S. M

12. Vinod Kumar Pandey vs The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. on September 14, 2023

    High Court of Delhi

    Case Name: Vinod Kumar Pandey vs The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. on September 14, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: September 14, 2023 Bench: Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain Subject: Criminal Law, Quashing of FIR, Section 482 Cr.P.C., Offences under IPC 363, 376, 366, POCSO Act, Compromise, Abuse of Process Key Legal Propositions 1. The High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, but this power must be exercised sparingly, with due care and caution, to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. 2. While non-compoundable offences generally cannot be quashed solely on the basis of a compromise, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. considering the specific facts and circumstances of each case, particularly where conviction is remote and continuing the proceedings would cause oppression or injustice. 3. In cases involving offences like rape, the courts must be circumspect and consider the gravity of the offence, but quashing may be considered if the victim and accused have a consensual relationship, are married, and have a child, and continuing the proceedi

13. Sunder Kukreja vs. The State on 13 February, 2023

    High Court of Delhi13 Feb 2023

    Case Name: Sunder Kukreja vs. The State on 13 February, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 13.02.2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Criminal Law – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Charge – Stalking, Outraging Modesty, Criminal Intimidation – Framing of Charge – Scope of Judicial Review Key Legal Propositions 1. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, and not for arriving at a conclusion of conviction. 2. High Courts exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not embark upon an appreciation of evidence in a minute manner, and cannot conduct a mini-trial. 3. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, particularly when allegations are absurd, improbable, or constitute an abuse of process. Judgment Summary Background: The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to set aside the order framing charges under Sections 354/354D/506 IPC and the order dismissing the revision against the framing of charge. The charges stemme

14. SMT REKHA SEHRAWAT vs SH. AMARJIT SINGH on 24 August, 2023

    High Court of Delhi24 Aug 2023

    Case Name: SMT REKHA SEHRAWAT vs SH. AMARJIT SINGH on 24 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 24 August, 2023 Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait & Justice Neena Bansal Krishna Subject: Matrimonial Appeal, Divorce, Cruelty, Desertion, Hindu Marriage Act Key Legal Propositions 1. Sole testimony of the appellant, without challenge through cross-examination or rebuttal, can be sufficient to establish cruelty and desertion. 2. Medical evidence corroborating claims of physical assault, coupled with a registered FIR under Section 498A IPC, strengthens the claim of cruelty. 3. Prolonged separation coupled with an intention not to resume marital life constitutes desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant filed a Matrimonial Appeal challenging the Family Court’s dismissal of her divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and desertion. She claimed dowry demands, physical and mental torture, and abandonment after being left at her parental home in an injured condition. The respondent did not file a written statement or contest the petition effect

15. Sanjay Kumar Pundeer vs State of NCT of Delhi on 15 September, 2023

    High Court of Delhi15 Sept 2023

    Case Name: Sanjay Kumar Pundeer vs State of NCT of Delhi on 15 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 15th September, 2023 Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma Subject: Criminal Law – Bail Application – Default Bail – Completion of Investigation – Section 167 CrPC – Section 39 Arms Act – Interpretation of ‘Complete’ Chargesheet Key Legal Propositions 1. A chargesheet filed within the statutory period (90 days) is not rendered incomplete merely due to pending supplementary evidence like FSL reports, especially when the core evidence supporting the prosecution's case is already on record. 2. The filing of a chargesheet, even if followed by further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, does not revive the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. 3. Sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act is not a pre-requisite for a valid chargesheet, and the absence of such sanction does not automatically render the chargesheet incomplete for the purpose of default bail. Judgment Summary Background: The present application sought default/statutory bail for the petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Pundeer, in connection with FIR No. 747/2021 registered under Sections 302

16. Arjun Kamti vs The State of GNCT of Delhi on 02 August, 2023

    High Court of Delhi2 Aug 2023

    Case Name: Arjun Kamti vs The State of GNCT of Delhi on 02 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 02 August, 2023 Bench: Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain Subject: Criminal Law, Section 482 Cr.P.C., Quashing of FIR, Offences under IPC 363, 376, POCSO Act, Compromise, Inherent Powers of High Court. Key Legal Propositions 1. The High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, but this power must be exercised sparingly and with due caution to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. 2. While non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded by a criminal court, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings, particularly in cases with a predominantly civil nature, where a genuine compromise exists. 3. In cases involving offences of a private nature, where the possibility of conviction is remote, and continuation of proceedings would cause oppression and injustice, the High Court may quash the proceedings, considering the specific facts and circumstances, and the antecedents of the accused. Judgment Summary Background: The present petition filed under Secti

17. Ashok Kumar Kharya vs State of NCT of Delhi on 16 August, 2023

    High Court of Delhi16 Aug 2023

    Case Name: Ashok Kumar Kharya vs State of NCT of Delhi on 16 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 16 August, 2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Criminal Law – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Supplementary Chargesheet – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Investigation – Role of Society Office Bearers – Misappropriation of Funds. Key Legal Propositions 1. A supplementary chargesheet can be filed even after cognizance is taken, provided a fair and just investigation is conducted and fresh evidence emerges. 2. The police have the power to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, even after submitting a report under Section 173(2), subject to the Magistrate’s oversight. 3. A Magistrate’s power to order further investigation continues until charges are framed, and the interest of justice requires a thorough investigation to identify both the guilty and the innocent. Judgment Summary Background: The petition challenges the summoning order and supplementary chargesheet filed against the petitioner, the President of the Eminent Officers Welfare Society (EOW Society), in a case involving allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, an

18. Ashish Mehra vs M/s. Byways India Pvt. Ltd. on 17 October, 2023

    High Court of Delhi17 Oct 2023

    Case Name: Ashish Mehra vs M/s. Byways India Pvt. Ltd. & Connected Matters on 17 October, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 17.10.2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Criminal Law, Negotiable Instruments Act, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Key Legal Propositions 1. Proceedings under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can continue against directors/persons in charge of a company even after the commencement of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 2. Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates staying of proceedings only when a complaint case and police investigation relate to the *same offence*. Different offences, even if connected, do not trigger the application of Section 210. 3. The power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly, and a court should not adopt a hyper-technical approach when examining a complaint. Judgment Summary Background: These petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC seek quashing of a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging dishonor of a cheque.

19. Arif Khan vs State (Govt of NCT Delhi) on 18 April, 2023

    High Court of Delhi18 Apr 2023

    Case Name: Arif Khan vs State (Govt of NCT Delhi) on 18 April, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 18 April, 2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Criminal Law – Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Default Bail – Completeness of Charge Sheet – FSL Report Key Legal Propositions 1. Non-filing of the FSL report along with the charge sheet does not, in itself, render the charge sheet incomplete within the meaning of Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The grant of bail by the Supreme Court in *Mohd. Arbaz & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi* did not hinge on the completeness of the charge sheet, but was granted considering specific circumstances and without reference to the issue of FSL reports. 3. The established legal position, as affirmed by a Coordinate Bench of the Delhi High Court in *Suleman v. State (NCT of Delhi)*, is that the absence of an FSL report does not automatically entitle an accused to default bail. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner sought to set aside an order declining his application for default bail, arguing that the charge sheet filed against him was incomplete as it lacked the

20. Shantanu Guha Ray vs. Union of India on 23 May, 2023

    High Court of Delhi23 May 2023

    Case Name: Shantanu Guha Ray vs. Union of India on 23 May, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 23.05.2023 Bench: Hon'ble The Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad Subject: Public Interest Litigation, Investigation into Financial Irregularities, Capital Market Integrity Key Legal Propositions 1. Once a thorough investigation has been conducted and charge sheets filed by the CBI, judicial intervention through monitoring of the trial is unwarranted. 2. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions for investigation is rendered infructuous when the investigating agency has already taken substantial steps in the matter, including filing charge sheets. 3. Courts should refrain from interfering with ongoing investigations when the investigating agency demonstrates due diligence and progress towards a logical conclusion. Judgment Summary Background: The present Writ Petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation by a journalist alleging financial irregularities and unlawful gains made by brokers and politicians in the capital markets. The Petitioner claimed to have previously exposed scams and sought a direction for the registration of an