CRPC Landmarks Cases

CrPC- Most Important Judgements
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)
The Supreme Court of India, in this case, held that Section 144 CrPC cannot be used as a
tool to prevent legitimate expression of opinion. The court further held that Section 144
CrPC is not only remedial but also preventive, and shall be exercised only in cases where
there is danger or apprehension of danger.
The Apex Court also directed the respondent-State or competent authorities to publish
all orders in force and any future orders under Section 144 of CrPC and for suspension of
telecom services, including internet, to enable the affected persons to challenge it before
the High Court or appropriate forum.
Abhilasha v. Parkash and Ors. (2020)
The Supreme Court of India, in this case, held that an unmarried Hindu daughter can
claim maintenance from her father till she gets married under Section 20(3) of Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, however, such daughter must prove that she is not
able to maintain herself and then only she shall be entitled to maintenance under the
1956 act.
Sharad Hiru Kolambe v, State of Maharashtra, (2018) 18 SCC 718
Default sentence 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. The Supreme Court held that it is a mandatory legal requirement to specify
whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two more offences, would run
concurrently or consecutively. Judgments pronounced by Session Judge cannot be
challenged on the ground that his appointment was subsequently held to the invalid.
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) 4 SCC 260
The Registration of FIR and arrest of accused person are two different things. It is not
correct to say that merely because FIR is registered the accused can be arrested. It was
opined by the Apex court that the possibility of substituting notice of appearance instead
of the arrest of accused.
Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1983) 2 SCC 96
Supreme Court held that accused person must be informed by Magistrate about his right
to be medically examined. This case also gave guidelines regarding arrest of women.
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273
Police officers were directed not to automatically arrest where a case is registered under
offence is punishable with imprisonment of 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 (1) of CrPC.
Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1
Arrest and imprisonment means deprivation to the most precious right of an individual.
Therefore,the Court have to be extremely careful before issuing non-bailable warrants,
Just as liberty is precious for an individual so is the interest of the society in maintaining
law and order.
Nanak Chandra v. Chandra Kishore, (1969) 3SCC 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.
Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and Anr.
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
Code of Criminal Procedure.
D. Velusamy v. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469
Woman who is in marriage like relationship though not legally married, a can
claim maintenance. The court held that not all live-relationships will amount to
Relationship in nature of marriage’ must fulfil following conditions: - The couple
must hold themselves out to Society as akin to spouses.
Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303
In deciding the quantum of maintenance of wife under Section 125 CrPC, the wife
is entitled in law to lead life in a similar manner as she should have lived in house
with her husband. It is a statutory obligation of husband to see that the Wife does
not become destitute.
Habib v. State of Bihar, (1972) 4 SCC 773
The purpose of FIR is:
I. To Set the criminal law in motion
II. To obtain early information of the alleged offence from the informant and put into
writing before his memory fades.
State of U.P. 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.
Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat. (1973) 3 SCC 114
Even a telephonic message if it discloses a cognizable may constitute FIR.

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
The word ‘information’ in Section 154 in 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 not preliminary inquiry is needed in such
situation.
Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119
FIR can be used to corroborate the information under Section 157 of Indian Evidence
ACT (Evidence Act) or to Contradict under Section 145 of Evidence Act if the informant
is called as witness at the time of trial.
Birendra Kumar Rai vs Union of India (1992)
It was held that to make an arrest the police officer need not be handcuff the person, and
it can be completed by spoken words also if the person submits to custody himself.
Mohd. Ahmad Khan v Shah Bano Begum (1985)
The case dealt with the issue of Maintenance to a Muslim Woman. The Supreme Court
held that Section 125 of CrPC is applicable throughout India irrespective of the religion of
the person.
State of U.P. V. Singhara Singh (1963)
The Supreme Court also observed that Section 164 would be rendered wholly nugatory if
the procedure prescribed by that provision was not held to be mandatory. Section 164
strikes a fine balance between the interests of the investigating agency and the accused
person, and this is the primary reason for judicial insistence on strict compliance with
the prescribed procedure.
V.C Shukla v. State (1980)
It explains the purpose of framing charge is to give intimation to the accused, which is
drawn up according to the specific language of the law, and giving clear and
unambiguous or precise notice of the nature of the accusation that the accused is called
upon to meet in the course of a trial.
Amiya Kumar v. State of West Bengal 1978 Cri.LJ 288
In the instant case, it was held that section 438 of the code empowers both the high court
and the sessions court to grant the anticipatory bail. Both the high court and the Sessions
court have the competency to grant this bail. If the Sessions court rejects the petition
filed by the applicant for the anticipatory bail then he cannot file the petition for the
same in the high court.
D.K Basu v State of West Bengal (1996)
The Supreme Court issued the guidelines to be followed while making the arrest and the
procedure to be followed as well.

CRPC Landmarks Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRPC Landmarks Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRPC Landmarks Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CrPC- Most Important Judgements

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)

Default sentence 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

The purpose of FIR is:

I. To Set the criminal law in motion

Delay in lodging FIR is normally viewed with suspicion because of possibility of

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

You might also like