Radesh Singh & Ors Vs State & Anr

On 21 February, 2011 Hon,ble Delhi High Court held, "it was incumbent upon the learned MM to spell out for which offence she was taking cognizance qua the petitioners and how that offence was made out and what was the role played by different offenders. No doubt, a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and not of the offenders, but when he sends summons to an offender, he sends summons asking the offender to face trial. The Magistrate must be clear in her mind as to what were the offences made out against the offender and that there was prima facie evidence against him, more specifically when the police during investigation has not been able to find out evidence of involvement of the offender. Since the Magistrate disagreed with the report of the police and considered that there was evidence to summon the petitioners and asked them to face trial, she must have spelt out the reasons for summoning the petitioners placed in Column No.2. If the police had collected sufficient evidence and forwarded challan in respect of the offenders, the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence and summon all such offenders for facing trial as named by police on the basis of evidence collected by the police but where the police has not found evidence and the Magistrate considered that there was sufficient evidence, then the Magistrate must pass a speaking order for summoning such offenders against whom, in the opinion of the police there was no evidence."

Narendra Vs State of Karnataka, Decided On: 05.05.2009

A judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Ram Narayan & Others State Of U.P. 2009

Court held on the permission of investigation u/s 155(2) CrPC -
permission can be granted by the Magistrate on the basis of the application moved by the complainant or any other aggrieved person.

Vakeel Ahmad Vs State Of U.P. & Another decided by Allahabad High Court on 03.9.2009.

Whether the Magistrate is bound to grant remand for judicial custody in those sections only for which prayer has been made by the investigating officer in remand application.
During the course of investigation, remand under section 354, 506 IPC was sought by the investigating officer.When the applicant-accused was brought to court for seeking remand, an application was moved on behalf of the prosecution to grant remand under section 376 IPC also. The learned magistrate after hearing parties counsel, allowed the application of prosecution and granted remand sending the applicant in judicial custody under section 376, 323, 506 IPC.
If in any case, the investigating officer deliberately commits mischief and with a view to help the accused, he does not seek remand in proper sections, then the magistrate can not sit as silent spectator. While granting remand under section 167 Cr.P.C., the magistrate is required to go through the case diary.
Investigating officer is not the sole authority to decide as to what offence is made out on the basis of material in case diary.

Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. (1998)5 SCC 749

Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint andthe evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.

Babubhai Jamnadas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1678-1679 of 2009

“There is little doubt that normally investigation of offences is the function of the investigating agencies and the Courts do not ordinarily interfere with the same. But, at the same time the High Court is vested with such powers, though the same are invoked only in cases where extraordinary facts are involved, necessitating such monitoring by the Courts.” “The Courts, and in particular the High Courts and the Supreme Court, are the sentinels of justice and have been vested with extraordinary powers of judicial review and supervision to ensure that the rights of the citizens are duly protected. The Courts have to maintain a constant vigil against the inaction of the authorities in discharging their duties and obligations in the interest of the citizens for whom they exist. This Court, as also the High Courts, have had to issue appropriate writs and directions from time to time to ensure that the authorities performed at least such duties as they were required to perform under the various statutes and orders passed by the administration. As for example, in the instant case, the High Court had to repeatedly intervene and pass orders to ensure that the investigation was being conducted diligently.” “no doubt that in appropriate cases, the Courts may monitor an investigation into an offence when it is satisfied that either the investigation is not being proceeded with or is being influenced by interested persons.”

M.C. Abraham and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 649

whether a charge-sheet should be submitted or not was the concern of the Investigating Agency and the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the same to be filed.

Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. v. `Niyamavedi' (1995) 3 SCC 601

“Any observations which may amount to interference in the investigation, should not be made. Ordinarily the Court should refrain from interfering at a premature stage of the investigation as that may derail the investigation and demoralise the investigation. Of late, the tendency to interfere in the investigation is on the increase and Courts should be wary of its possible consequences. We say no more.”

CrPC- Sec 200 Abhinandan Jha and Ors. Dinesh Mishra [1967] 3 S.C.R. 668 while a Magistrate can order the police to investigate the complaint it has no power to compel the police to submit a charge-sheet on a final report being submitted by the police. In such cases a Magistrate can either order re-investigation or dispose of the complaint according to law.