Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 561-A, 169 & 164

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----Ss. 561-A, 169 & 164--Application of--Inherent jurisdiction--The present case is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, therefore judicial propriety demands that some important exercise needs to be completed by Magistrate before sending case to Court of Sessions for trial of accused in particular Sections if at all attracted which is without prejudice rights of accused--In present case, Investigating Officer has recommended case against present applicant under Section 169, Cr.P.C. by discarding Section 34, PPC, which triggered case to Magistrate to take cognizance of offense of 302 & 34, PPC vide impugned order, which has been resisted by applicants on premise that there is no evidence brought on record to connect applicant with commission of offense; as there was a dispute in between husband and wife, who confessed his guilt and recorded his statement u/S. 164, Cr.P.C.--The question is whether applicants can be saddled with criminal/vicarious liability in terms of Section 34, PPC and if at all subject section is attracted whether Magistrate can take cognizance of that section when Investigating Officer has recommended case against applicant under Section 169, Cr.P.C., lacking evidence as there was no material with learned Magistrate to take cognizance of offense u/S. 34, PPC and second question, whether Magistrate ought to have directed Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation in nouter to bring truth on record so far as vicarious liability of applicants is concerned--Since, Investigating Officer submitted his repart u/S. 173 Cr. P.C, duly supported by Deputy Public Prosecutor’s opinion, proper course could have been for further deliberation on subject issue by Magistrate after hearing parties concerned including Investigating Officer--The Magistrate’s decision to take cognizance against applicants Tejo and Sht. Phullan legally needs further deliberations as it was solely based on contentions of complainant recorded in FIR as well as his witnesses by ignoring vital evidence in shape of confessional statement of prime accused Narain, who prima facie who does not implicate…