Judgments High Courts & Apex Court

Joginder Kumar Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh 1994 (4) SCC 260 : AIR 1994 SC 1349 Para 24: No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the Police Officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The Police Officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a Police Officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arr...

Observations in WP (C) No. 8348 / 2009 – date of judgment – 25.01.2010 We have come across several writ petitions in which similar relief is claimed not only in respect of inaction of the authority dealing with land acquisition proceedings, but even other departments, such as Cooperative Department, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Education Department, Social Welfare Department, Zilla Parishads and the like. We find that substantial number of writ petitions, such as the present petition, which are filed in this Court, are avoidable, if the officials of the State were to discharge their statutory obligation of deciding the representation within a reasonable time. In the present case, petitioner has submitted her application almost one year back i.e. 5 th January, 2009. It is unnecessary to underscore that the applicant would have legitimate expectation of early redressal of her grievance. Indubitably, expeditious decision on the representation or application is a right ingrained in...

(A) LAW WITH RESPECT TO COMPULSORY REGISTRATION OF FIR DISCLOSING COMMISSION OF COGNIZABLE OFFENCE (I) “In BOMBAY(Criminal) 08/10/2008 (J-R) APPW/271/2007, a full bench judgment of the Bombay High Court had laid down that cops should register the FIR against the accused person within two days of being informed of commission of any cognizable offence.” The comprehensive judgment, among other things, says that, the law inescapably requires the police officer to register the information received by him in relation to commission of a cognizable offence. Under the scheme of the CrPC, no choice is vested in the police officer between recording or not recording the information received. This Judgment of Bombay High Court or Judgments of any High Court can be used in any Court in India. (II) In Writ Petition (CRL) no 68 of 2008 (Latika Kumar vs. Govt of UP & Others). On 14th July 2008 , Justice BN Agarwal and Justice GS Singhvi " directed, “We feel that it is high time to giv...

In the case of Legrand (India) Private Limited Versus Union Of India [ 2008 (2) BCR 387 : 2007 (6) MhLj 146], the Bombay High Court have held that the Public authorities / persons may be held guilty of contempt of the Court, if, in the regular discharge of their duties, they knowingly disregard the law laid down by the said Court. It is a case where, despite being specifically brought to the knowledge of the law being laid down by the Bombay High Court, the Public officer acted in breach of the law laid down; and the High Court, in the Writ jurisdiction, initiated Contempt proceedings against the said officer. The Court held that – (a) It is immaterial that in a previous litigation the particular petitioner before the Court was or was not a party, but if a law on a particular point has been laid down by the High Court, it must be followed by all authorities and tribunals in the State; (b) The law laid down by the High Court must be followed by all authorities and subord...

Para 7: It is important to note that provisions of Citizens Charter by the Administrative Departments of the Government must be made known to the common man for whom it is meant. It is no doubt true that Citizens Charter which was published, though put on the website, however, in order to apprise the common man about the Citizens Charter, we direct each Administrative Department of the State Government to affix copy of Citizens Charter prepared by that Department on the notice board to be placed on the front lobby of the Department or at such a place which is easily visible to members of public who visit the Department. The entire exercise must be completed by each Department within a period of two months from today. We also expect the State Government to finalize the Rules to carry out purpose of the Act without further delay and notify the same in the official gazette. PIL No.50 / 2011 – date of judgment – 21.12.2011 Sandeep Jalan Advocate Law Referencer: https://www.vakee...

Para 5. Large number of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are being filed in this Court making a grievance regarding failure to register the offence in accordance with sub-section 1 of Section 154 of the said Code, though either complaint in writing is lodged with the concerned police station or the statement of the complainant is recorded by the Police. Such petitions are being filed only because the concerned officer of the police do not care to inform the complainants about the action taken on the complaints. In view of the decision of the Full Bench, at highest and that also in exceptional and rare cases, the concerned officer has time of two days to hold preliminary enquiry. In all other cases, the officer is expected to act immediately. Only in exceptional cases, he gets time of two days. The very fact that subsection (3) of Section 154 gives a remedy to the person aggrieved by the failure on the part of the officer to record the information shows that ...

In Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), (2005) 6 SCC 344, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, among other things, has observed and directed – “…The Governments, government departments or statutory authorities are defendants in a large number of Cases pending in various courts in the country. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that in a large number of cases either the notice is not replied to or in the few cases where a reply is sent, it is generally vague and evasive. It not only gives rise to avoidable litigation but also results in heavy expenses and costs to the exchequer as well. A proper reply can result in reduction of litigation between the State and the citizens. In case a proper reply is sent, either the claim in the notice may be admitted or the area of controversy curtailed, or the citizen may be satisfied on knowing the stand of the State. Having regard to the existing state of affairs, we direct all Governments, Central or St...

(iv) A critical and detailed observation of the Apex Court in respect of unabated practice of “mechanical arrests” in a very recent case deserves to be reproduced. [JT 2014 (7) SC 527] Para 7  Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is a battle between the law makers and the police and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the Cr.PC. It has not come out of its colonial image despite six decades of independence. It is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of public. The need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been emphasized time and again by Courts but has not yielded desired result. Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption. The attitude...