Section 188 crpc. HC expounds Not permissible for the Police to file a Case u/S. 188 IPC and then submit a report to the appropriate court u/S. 173 CrPC [Read Judgment] 2022-12-17
Section 188 crpc Rating:
4,6/10
1610
reviews
Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is a provision in Indian law that deals with disobedience to an order issued by a public servant. It is a punishable offense under Indian law and is punishable with a fine or imprisonment, or both.
The provision states that if a person disobeys any order that has been issued by a public servant, which is authorized by law to be issued, and which the public servant is empowered to enforce, then that person can be punished under this section. This means that if a person disobeys an order issued by a public servant that is authorized by law and that the public servant has the power to enforce, then that person can be charged under this section.
The provision applies to orders issued by a wide range of public servants, including police officers, magistrates, and other officials authorized by law to issue orders. The provision is often used in cases where a person disobeys an order issued by a police officer, such as an order to disperse or to leave a particular area.
There are certain exceptions to this provision, which are outlined in the CrPC. For example, a person cannot be punished under this section if they can show that they had a reasonable excuse for disobeying the order.
Overall, Section 188 of the CrPC is an important provision in Indian law that helps to ensure that orders issued by public servants are followed and respected. It serves as a deterrent against disobedience and helps to maintain order and public safety in the country.
The Supreme Court observed that Sanction under Section 188 CrPC is necessary only if the entire offense is committed outside India.
They would be in a more knowledgeable position than local jurisdictions to determine whether any concurrent action is ensuing overseas or being proposed , assessing legal viability for such remedies to be pursued at whichever venue, specifics of any liaison work required to enhance investigation, and deliberating on other pertinent and complex factors that determine a successful disposition of criminal trials of this magnitude. The legislative intent is to prevent an individual or a group of persons from facing criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by persons actuated by malice, ill will, or frivolity of disposition and to save the time of Criminal Courts from being vexed by endless prosecution. In all likelihood, they would be denied an entry visa if they applied in their capacity of his wives. Section 188 and 189 of Criminal procedure Code reads as under : 188. Under Section 188 CrPC, even if an offence is committed outside India, a by a citizen whether on the high seas or anywhere else or b by a non-citizen on a ship or aircraft registered in India, the offence can still be tried in India provided the conditions mentioned in said Section are satisfied. A PIL titled Vikram Singh vs Union of India 2020 was filed recently in the Supreme Court to quash FIRs registered under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for violation of lockdown orders. However, along with the final report the public servant who had promulgated the order shall also give a complaint in writing to the court.
SC rules, Sanction under Sec.188 CrPC can be given even at post Cognizance stage. [Read the Judgement]
In Uttar Pradesh, according to the government officials as of 29 th April, FIRs have been registered against 33094 people under Section 188 of IPC during the period of lockdown. For this, prior approval from the central government is required. The appellant was accused of luring and trafficking a Nepalese juvenile girl for exploitation. When Criminal Procedure Code itself provides that offence is cognizable, then it would become mandate to register FIR and do further investigation in the matter. This conflict arises, as we have understood above, due to the bar created by Section 195 1 a CrPC.
Don't the police think this their own brain? The public servant in such a case may give an informal complaint to the police. In both allegations the opponent has no evidence to prove her allegations. The proviso to Section 188, which has been extracted hereinbefore, is a fetter on the powers of the investigating authority to inquire into or try any offence mentioned in the earlier part of the Section, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. The regular procedure for criminal cases is to register an FIR under Section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code, arrest the accused without a warrant and investigation by the police. But, along with final report, public servant shall give a complaint in writing to the court. .
In April, 2007 - When my mother came to US to help opponent's delivery my mother and me beaten her, no food, disconnected phone, and demanded "CAR" for my sister who lives in India - This part in US The opponent went back to india in October, 2007 but did not file any complaint until my visit to india on April, 2008 No question from the police about this delay. According to Schedule 1 st of CrPC, offence under section 188 of Indian Penal Code is cognizable. The Magistrate is, therefore, free to proceed against the accused in respect of offences having been committed in India and to complete the trial and pass judgment therein, without being inhibited by the other alleged offences for which sanction would be required. State of Maharashtra , had taken similar view. If someone disobey such order, than he would be liable for prosecution in accordance with provision of Section 188 of Indian Penal Code. Eventually, Police need to submit the Final Report Charge-sheet on completion of investigation under Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code On the basis of such report, the Court takes cognizance and trial begins.
AdvJitendra Mohan Sharma for the appellant, Adv Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the State Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 188 - The Section gets attracted when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India; and the grant of sanction would enable such offence to be enquired into or tried in India - When a part of the offence was definitely committed on the soil of this country, going by the normal principles the offence could be looked into and tried by Indian courts - If the offence was not committed in its entirety, outside India, the matter would not come within the scope of Section 188 of the Code and there is no necessity of any sanction as mandated by the proviso to Section 188. It means usual procedure of filing FIR, investigation and final report becomes useless. The Supreme Court observed that Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code will not be attracted if a part of the offence was committed in India. It was further submitted that there is a complete violation of Section 195 Cr. Having been trained and mentored by some of best lawyers, he brings a unique perspective and varied experience to his practice. Section 154 and 195 of Criminal Procedure Code are apposite to each other and rather contrary.
Section 188 CrPC, The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Offence committed outside India.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly. The object of requiring the sanction of the Central Government appears to be to prevent the accused person being tried over again for the same offence in two different places. Check this recent SC judgment. It is bad in eye of law. BRIEF FACTS The factual matrix of the case is that the team of police officials was present and patrolling during ongoing Vidhan Sabha elections.
HC expounds Not permissible for the Police to file a Case u/S. 188 IPC and then submit a report to the appropriate court u/S. 173 CrPC [Read Judgment]
Accordingly, offences committed in Botswana by an Indian citizen would also be amenable to the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, subject to the limitation imposed under the proviso to Section 188 Cr. As many as 256 complaints, most of them of brawls and noise pollution, and accidents, were received between 8pm and 8am. Ravindra Bhat on 06-03-2020. There are several judgments giving different views on this issue: In State of Punjab V. The legislative intent behind such a provision has been that an individual should not face criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by actuated by malice, ill-will or frivolity of disposition and to save the time of the criminal courts being wasted by endless prosecutions.
Offence committed outside India. Since the offence was not committed in its entirety, outside India, the matter would not come within the scope of Section 188 of the Code and there was no necessity of any sanction as mandated by the proviso to Section 188. If we go by the ruling of the Madras High Court in Jeevandhanam, the High Court does not seem to be accepting of this suggestion, even when this suggestion seems to be apt in the current scenario. In a cognizable offence the usual procedure is that, upon receiving the information regarding commission of an offence, an FIR is to be registered. It was further held that it is abundantly clear that registration of FIR is nothing but is in complete violation of legal proposition as well as settled canons of law, especially, in the circumstances that admittedly, no complaint in writing by Public Servant concerned has been moved as is required under Section 195 1 Cr. ADVERTISEMENTS: However, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Even though Court is incompetent to take cognizance of the case according to Section 195 of CrPC, it can file complaint on the basis of FIR filed by the aggrieved private party.
