Case Name : Ramdev Food Products Private Limited vs State of Gujarat Case Reference: (2015) 5 SCR 283 Case Number: Crl A No 600/2007 Court: Supreme Court Bench: 03 Coram: TS Thakur, Adarsh Kumar Goel (Author, R Banumathi Date: 17.02.2006
Entry regarding information relating to cognizable offence under CrPC - Section 154 is an FIR; First Information Report. On suspecting commission of offence, officer empowered to investigate may investigate and take measures for discovery and arrest of offender under [CrPC, Section 157] subject to compliance of other requirements (Para 16) Such as Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar in CrPC - Section 41A Power of arrest or investigation is not mechanical and requires application of mind in the manner provided. (Para 19)
Direction for investigation under [CrPC - Section 156] cannot be mechanical (Para 20)
Direction to register FIR is to be issued only on application of mind by the Magistrate (Para 22) 1. When the Magistrate does not take cognisance and does not find it necessary to postpone issuance of process (under CrPC - Section 202); but that there is a case to direct investigation, an order under [CrPC - Section 156] may be directed.
Explanation of the maxim expressio unius est exclusion alterious which means express mention of one thing excludes others. Mary Angel vs State of Tamil Nadu
The above maxim does not apply to [CrPC - Section 202] (Para 24 at Page 309)
Admissibility of confession cannot guide exercise power of arrest. The source of power of arrest is not Evidence - Section 27, but CrPC - Section 41 or under a warrant. Police cannot on its own exercise the power of arrest in the course of making its report in pursuance to a direction under CrPC - Section 202 (Para 24,25)
When from the facts it appeared that it was a civil dispute, the Magistrate was correct in proceeding under CrPC - Section 202 instead of [CrPC - Section 156]. (Para 30, 33)
The power under [CrPC - Section 156] can be invoked before taking cognisance and is in the nature of pre-emptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise its plenary power of investigation which begins with investigation under CrPC - Section 156 and ends with a report or chargesheet under CrPC - Section 173 (Para 34, 35)
Refer also: Adalat Prasad vs Rupal Jindal, (2004) 7 SCC 338 Accused has no right to be heard at the stage of inquiry
Anil Kumar vs MK Aiyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705 (Para 11) - The Magistrate cannot refer the matter against a public servant without a valid sanction order; the Magistrate is required to apply his mind on applications under [CrPC - Section 156] or CrPC - Section 200. Mere statement that the Magistrate has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant will not be sufficient. The order must reflect what weighs with the Magistrate to order investigation under [CrPC - Section 156]; though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted
Mary Angel vs State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 5 SCC 209
Indian Oil Corpn vs NEPC India Ltd, (2006) 6 SCC 736 (Para 13) Cautioning against growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases; that this practice also in family disputes
See also: Section 156(3) Act, Section
Ramdev Food Products Pvt Ltd vs State of Gujarat, (2015) 5 SCR 283.pdf