Citizens' Issues
Police cannot say no to register FIR in cognisable offences: SC

The Supreme Court on Tuesday has ruled that in a cognisable offence, registration of first information report (FIR) is a mandatory and action must be taken against police officials for not lodging a case in such offences.

 

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam said, “We hold registration of FIR is mandatory and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in cognisable offences.”

Police officials cannot avoid register an FIR in a cognisable offence and action must be taken against them if it is not done, the apex court said

The Bench, also comprising Justices BS Chauhan, Ranjana P Desai, Ranjan Gogoi and SA Bobde, said that action must be taken against erring police officials for not registering FIR in cognisable offences. It said, “Police officials cannot avoid register the FIR and action must be taken against them if no FIR is registered”.

 

It said that preliminary enquiry can be conducted in other cases to find out whether the offence is cognisable or not and such probe must be completed within seven days.

 

The Bench said there is no ambiguity in the law and the legislative intent is for compulsory registration of FIR in cognisable offences.

 

The Constitution Bench delivered the verdict after a three-judge Bench referred the case to the larger Bench on the ground that there were conflicting judgments on the issue.

User

SC trashes PIL on UK Sinha's appointment

The judgement has dealt a rare stinging blow to several powerful reputations. The SC also called the petitioner a 'stool pigeon'

On 3rd November, the Supreme Court (SC) rejected a third public interest litigation (PIL) against the appointment of UK Sinha as chairman of the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The 87-page judgement termed the petition ‘motivated’ and felt that the petitioner was a ‘stool pigeon’ of ‘surrogate phantom lobbies’. The judgement has dealt a rare stinging blow to several powerful reputations with this observation: “This is not a petition to protect the fundamental rights of any class of downtrodden or deprived section of the population. It is more for the protection of the vested interests of some unidentified business lobbies.”

On two previous occasions in 2011, similar PILs were filed by a very eminent troika of persons namely, former air chief marshal S Krishnaswamy, India’s ‘super cop’ Julio Rebeiro, and former joint director of the central bureau of investigation (CBI) BR Lall. They were represented by Gopal Subramaniam, the former solicitor general of India. In November 2011, I had described these petitions ‘bizarre’ and wondered why these persons, who had shown no interest in the many major problems with India’s capital market regulation, would go to the apex court with a petition making ‘unfounded’ allegations against the then finance minister. The then chief justice, SH Kapadia, had called it a ‘publicity-seeking petition’ and allowed it to be withdrawn twice. This time, a very combative petitioner was represented by Prashant Bhushan, a reputed advocate and now a senior leader of the Aam Aadmi Party who is known to take up public causes.

Assuming that all these activists are concerned about establishing a fair process to select the chairman of SEBI, the question is: How come none of them found anything objectionable in the appointment of UK Sinha’s predecessor CB Bhave? He was not on the final short-list and was hobbled through his tenure by an artificial ‘ring fence’ in connection with SEBI’s indictment of the role of National Securities Depository Limited (which he founded and headed for 15 years) in the IPO scam of 2006. The activists also found nothing wrong in the surreptitious attempt to grant an extension to Mr Bhave and his chosen core team of whole-time directors and executive directors, whose term ran almost concurrently, just a year after their appointment.

But time has a funny way of dealing with issues. Among those against UK Sinha’s appointment, was SEBI’s former whole-time director, KM Abraham. In a letter to the prime minister (PM),

Mr Abraham had alleged that Mr Sinha would bury the Sahara case at the behest of then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee. The Supreme Court has been dismissive of these letters. Mr Abraham has been proved completely wrong on the Sahara issue. (He was also part of the cabal of top SEBI officials close to the previous chairman who considered Jignesh Shah unfit to run an equity exchange. Mr Shah may have proved them right but the fact is that the same prescient team had found Mr Shah fit to start a currency derivatives segment). The apex court pointed out that Mr Abraham’s complaint was ‘motivated’, that it “did not espouse any public interest” and was made only after his extension at SEBI was denied, seemingly out of personal pique.

User

COMMENTS

nagesh kini

3 years ago

These days PIL stand more for publicity/private interest litigation. It is grosssly abused by vested interests as is the case with RTI. The petitioners need to prove their locus standi and how the alleged/perceived wrong militates against public interest.

JAYDEEP ARVIND TANNA

3 years ago

I would request Advocate to file PIL not target on 1 person but more than 1 person because it is public interest litigation, SC has reject PIL in many case, you should involved other also who are appointed within that you target 1 of the person, so it will not be rejected or dismissed it will become PIL.

Unquoted: Global Infratech

Stories of Price Manipulation

The company was earlier known as Asianlak Capital and Finance Ltd. But it changed its name, on 9 October 2013, to Global Infratech & Finance Ltd. This is a strategy to mask its inglorious past. According to the BSE, it is supposedly into ‘miscellaneous commercial services’ whatever this means. The company has committed many infractions, most notably failing to comply with BSE’s listing agreement. It was suspended from listing on 30 November 2007. The suspension got revoked on 18 November 2011. The company’s fundamentals are extremely erratic. Its net sales for the past four quarters were Rs4.68 crore, Rs1.19 crore, Rs7.74 crore and Rs1.29 crore, respectively, for the September 2012, December 2012, March 2013 and June 2013 quarters. Its net profit for the same periods were equally erratic at Rs19 lakh, Rs26 lakh, Rs16 lakh and Rs71 lakh, respectively. The stock was less than Rs1 on 25 June 2012. And now? It was quoting at a whopping Rs91.9 on 25 October 2013, translating to a massive 11388% returns! Our regulators, of course, are blind.

User

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)