
CrPC or BNSS?: The Tug of War Around July 01, 2024
by Aditya Mukherjee* and Jayati Sinha**
by Aditya Mukherjee* and Jayati Sinha**
The complainant was pitted against the might of petitioners, i.e., husband, father-in-law, and three sisters-in-law, who were abusing and ill-treating her on petty issues and their sole aim was to extort money from her and her parents.
The Court opined that since the petition was filed after 01-07-2024, it ought to have been filed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Court stated that “if an FIR is registered prior to 01-07-2023 under the CrPC, it would amount to a pending enquiry/investigation within the meaning of Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS.”
The Delhi High Court opined that true justice, and the ends of justice would not be served by quashing the FIR without a trial, but by conducting a trial to fairly ascertain the real culprit, whether it be the accused or the complainant.
“The nature of abusive language is not specific. Applicant 1 was naturally at the house, and there was no evidence of intent. Therefore, ingredients of Section 503 IPC as punishable under Section 506 IPC are not made out.”
As per petitioners, the Chief Minister is responsible for tweeting fake circular of closure of hostels and messes in the Osmania University due to acute shortage of water and electricity.
The Court opined that the allegation that money is obtained to bribe the judges of this Court casts a serious doubt on the independence of judiciary and implies that justice is up for sale and such serious allegations need to be investigated.
“Though the charge sheet is filed after due investigation without prior permission of the Court and that the Magistrate has accepted the charge sheet and taken the cognizance, it does not mean that permission is granted by the Magistrate to investigate such non-cognizable offence.”
FIR is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported and mere information is sufficient for investigation.
Gurmeet Ram Rahim is currently serving a jail sentence of 20 years, due to his conviction for the rape of two women.
The Court noted that the 2nd Respondent did not mention the allegations of gang rape in her written complaint before the Police, however while recording her statement under S. 164, CrPC, she levelled allegations of gang rape on the petitioners for the first time.
The High Court found the cause of action to be untenable as the petitioners were already accused in a similar case.
Petitioner has shown remorse for his conduct and undertakes not to repeat the same in future. Respondent 2 also states that he has settled the disputes with the petitioner out of his own free will, volition and without any coercion.
Sheikh Sahadat, a 32-year-old person was found dead in police custody with black and blue marks of beatings all over his back and chest and with swelling on his hands and legs.
Where the wife is set to implicate the entire family of the husband in a criminal case, it is to be expected that through her lawyer she would get a complaint properly drafted making some specific allegations against each of the family members.
The Delhi High Court had earlier directed registration of a First Information Report (‘FIR’) against the makers of TVF web series ‘College Romance’.