Topic
An FIR is not maintainable for a Section 138 NI Act offence; a complaint under Section 142A is required to take cognizance. This bars police from initiating cheque bounce proceedings without a complaint, affecting complainants and the accused.
A dismissal of a complaint for procedural default does not extinguish the power to treat a subsequent petition under CrPC s.156(3) as a new FIR, even when the facts are identical. This safeguards complainants by ensuring procedural lapses cannot shield alleged offences.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed that a Judicial Magistrate First Class may, under Section 176(1A) CrPC, conduct a complete inquiry into a custodial death, identify responsible officials and direct the police to register an FIR. This expands magistrate authority, enhancing accountability of law-enforcement agencies in custodial incidents.
Bombay High Court rules that an accused not named in the FIR cannot be arrested solely based on presence in the same vehicle as co-accused. The judgment reinforces that criminal liability must be established beyond mere association, impacting anticipatory bail jurisprudence under BNS.
The Supreme Court clarifies that the limitation period under Section 468 CrPC begins from the date of the FIR or complaint filing, not when the magistrate takes cognizance. This ruling overturns the High Court’s quashing of the FIR, reinforcing that delayed charge-sheets beyond the prescribed period will attract the bar of limitation, impacting criminal proceedings nationwide.