Does the Law on ‘Monitoring (Police) Investigation’ by the Magistrate Require Deliberation?

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Abstract

Part I – Powers of the Magistrate to order/direct investigation                •➧ The CrPC / BNSS empowers the Magistrate to order or direct investigation (by police) under the following provisions-                              §1. S. 155(2) CrPC / S. 174(2) BNSS,                             § 2. S. 156(3) CrPC / S. 175(3) BNSS,                             §3. S. 202(1) / S. 225(1) BNSS. Part II – SUPREME COURT held : Magistrate Can ‘MONITOR‘ the Investigation                •➧ In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., 2008-2 SCC 409, it is held that the Magistrate has very wide powers to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation. This decision is not uniformly followed. Part III – CRITICISM                •➧ The CrPC / BNSS does not give powers to the Magistrate to “monitor” the investigation or  to ‘Return’ a Final Report, to police, for ‘reinvestigation’ or ‘further investigation’. Once a Final Report is filed, the Magistrate has to apply his mind under S. 202 CrPC / S. 225(1) BNSS – to decide whether to proceed with it or not.               •➧ After taking cognizance, the Magistrate cannot go back to the pre-cognisance stage – S. 156(3) CrPC / S. 175(3) BNSS; and, S. 173(8) CrPC / S. 193(9) BNSS authorises (only) the police to make further investigation.  Part IV – LEGISLATIVE INTENT AS TRANSPIRED IN BNSS, 2023                •➧ The parliament revamped and recast the Procedure Code. Despite the discordant views of the Courts in India, on powers of Magistrate, no change is made to the relevant provisions relating to the same. It speaks volume.

Taken from: What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a Magistrate

Part I

Powers the Magistrate to order/direct investigation

The CrPC/BNSS empowers the Magistrate to order/direct investigation (by police) under the following provisions-
                             • 1. S. 155(2) CrPC / S. 174 BNSS – noncognizable cases,
                             • 2. S. 156(3) CrPC / S. 175(3) BNSS – cognizable cases,
                             •3. S. 202(1) CrPC / S. 225(1) BNSS – for deciding whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. [Note: S. 173(8) CrPC / S. 193(9) BNSS allows (only) the police to make further investigation.]

Relevant Changes in BNSS from CrPC

CrPC	BNSS
Section 155: Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases (1). ….. (2). No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.	Section 174. [No Change to Sub-Sec. (2)]
Section 156: Police Officer’s power to investigate cognisable case. (1) … (2) …… (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned.	Section 175 (3) (No Substantial Change to this sub-Section.) Section 175 (3) reads as under: Any Magistrate empowered under section 210 may, after considering the application supported by an affidavit made under sub-section (4) of section 173, and after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as above-mentioned.
Section 202 Postponement of issue of process. (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192 may, if he thinks fit, ……. postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Provided that …	Section 225 [No Substantial Change to this sub-Section]
Section 173(8) (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under Sub-Section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding, such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of Sub-Sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under Sub-Section (2).	S. 193(9) [No Substantial Change to this sub-Section]

Part II

SUPREME COURT : Magistrate Can ‘MONITOR‘ the Investigation

In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., 2008-2 SCC 409 (Markandey Katju, J.), while dealing with the scope of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., held that the Magistrate can monitor the investigation of police; and it can direct a proper investigation if an application under Section 156(3) is filed. It is held as under:

• “11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation. …..
• 13. The same view was taken by this Court in Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi (JT vide para 17). We would further clarify that even if an FIR has been registered and even if the police has made the investigation, or is actually making the investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such a person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper investigation and take other suitable steps and pass such order(s) as he thinks necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. All these powers a Magistrate enjoys under Section 156(3) CrPC. Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2011 Page 4 of 8 14. Section 156(3) states:
• The words “as above mentioned” obviously refer to Section 156(1), which contemplates investigation by the officer in charge of the police station. ….
• 15. Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII CrPC. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same.
• 16. The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 156(3) is an independent power and does not affect the power of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after submission of his report vide Section 173(8). Hence the Magistrate can order reopening of the investigation even after the police submits the final report, vide State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha [(1980) 1 SCC 554 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 272 : AIR 1980 SC 326] (SCC : AIR para 19).
• 17. In our opinion Section 156(3) CrPC is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) CrPC, though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. …..
• 27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself).”

Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. is quoted and followed in:

• XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 AIR SC 3957; 2023-9 SCC 705,
• M.  Subramaniam v S.  Janaki, 2020-16 SCC 728,
• Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2019 SC  5233,
• Hamant Yashwant Dhage v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2016 SC 814.

By the Implied Power, Magistrate is the Whole Sole Authority to Monitor

In Dr. Kuldeep Kaushik v. State of U.P. , 2016 SCC OnLine All. 722, it is found – by the implied power the magistrate is the Whole Sole Authority to Monitor the Investigation. An instance of monitoring is pointed out in this decision. It held as under:

• “It can be inferred that there is no express power to the magistrate regarding the monitoring of the investigation but under section 156 of the Cr.P.C., that implied power is there and magistrate is having whole sole authority to monitor the investigation and in case investigation is not going on proper or in fair manner in that case, magistrate is even having authority to interfere in the investigation. ….
• This court is certainly of the view that magistrate is all empowered to monitor the investigation and in case it is required then proper direction may also be issued and if in view of the Code certain papers that are being filed by the accused to be sent to the Investigating Officer, that right can very well be given to the accused, although magistrate will refrain from expressing any opinion regarding the papers and further accused can also not claim that papers may be taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer and after taking all those papers, opinion should be found by the Investigating Officer and only then the wanting report be submitted. …
• Had applicant tried to submit the papers before the Investigating Officer and had he refused for taking the papers into consideration, only then the right of accused could have accrued for praying the magistrate to direct the Investigating Officer for a proper investigation under Section 156 Cr.P.C.”

There is ‘Alternate remedy’ to approach the Magistrate

In Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhages, (2016) 6 SCC 277, it is observed as under:

• “2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.
• 3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation.
• 4. In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure proper investigation into the alleged offence under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he deems it necessary, he can also recommend to the SSP/SP concerned a change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done. The Magistrate can also monitor the investigation, though he cannot himself investigate (as investigation is the job of the police). Parties may produce any material they wish before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order of the High Court.”

Further investigation by Police – under Sec.173(8) Cr PC/ S. 193(9) BNSS

Under 173(8) CrPC / S. 193(9) BNSS, a police officer can carry on further investigation. (It does not authorise the Magistrate to make such an order.) Police should seek formal permission from the Court for such further investigation, as held in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762.

In Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat (RF Nariman, J.), AIR 2019 SC  5233, it is observed as under:

• “When Section 156(3) of CrPC states that a Magistrate empowered under Section 190 of CrPC may order such an investigation, such Magistrate may also order further investigation under Section 173(8), regard being had to the definition of investigation contained in Section 2(h).”

In Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah,  1997-7 SCC 614, it was observed as under:

• “The Magistrate could, thus in exercise of the powers under Section 173(8) CrPC direct the CBI to ‘further investigate’ the case and collect further evidence keeping in view the objections raised by the appellant to the investigation and the ‘new’ report to be submitted by the investigating officer would be governed by sub- sections (2) to (6) of Section 173 CrPC.”
• (Quoted in: Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat (RF Nariman, J.), AIR 2019 SC  5233; Central Bureau of India v. Hemendhra Reddy  (J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.)

Part III

CRITICISM :

The Magistrate, u/s 156(3) CrPC / S. 175(3) BNSS, cannot– (i) monitor or (ii) direct re-investigation. Similarly, Magistrate cannot Order further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC / S. 193(9) BNSS also.

It is definite –

• The CrPC / BNSS does not specifically say it.
• As per the CrPC / BNSS, ‘investigation’ is particularly destined to Police; and power of inquiry is assigned to Magistrate.

It appears –

• The logic given in Sakiri Vasu [on “such an investigation“] does not seem convincing. Sec. 156 / S. 175 BNSS deals with a sporadic act of requiring investigation; and no further direction is contemplated (till a final report is filed by the Police).
• The CrPC / BNSS does not give a power to the Magistrate to “monitor” the investigation. (If it was really intended, or the scheme was, to convey a ‘wide power’ including monitoring, it would have been stated in the Code/Sanhita itself.)
• The power of Magistrate to order ‘further investigation’ is vested only in Sec. 202 CrPC / S. 225 BNSS. It cannot be made under Sec. 156(3) / S. 175(3) BNSS or Sec. 173(8) CrPC / S. 193(9) BNSS.
  • Note: Sec. 156(3) / S. 175(3) BNSS deals with the power of Magistrate to direct investigation of cognizable offences by police.
  • Sec. 173(8) CrPC / S. 193(9) BNSS does not authorise the Magistrate to make an order for further investigation. (It authorises the the police officer alone.)
• The power for ‘Ordering Proper Investigation’ (by police) may be a matter for the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The ‘grievance’ on investigation cannot be slipped-down to a magistrate, as laid down in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhages (supra) as an ‘alternate remedy’.
• The Magistrate derives powers to deal with (or take cognizance of) the facts which constitute an offence, under Clauses (a) to (c) of Sec. 190(1) of the CrPC / S. 210 BNSS. It is on the following –
  • (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;
  • (b) upon a police report of such facts;
  • (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
• Once a Final Report is filed, the Magistrate has to apply his mind – to decide whether to proceed with it (that is, to issue summons/warrant under Sec. 204 CrPC / S. 227 BNSS) or not. At this stage, if the Magistrate finds it proper to take further evidence or conduct further investigation, he has to invoke Sec. 202 CrPC / S. 225 BNSS (and, he cannot go back to Sec. 156 / S. 175(3) BNSS).
  It is for the following –
  (i) after getting the police report, the magistrate has to take cognizance of offences, under Sec. 190 CrPC / S. 210 BNSS, if he decides to proceed.
  (ii) after taking cognizance on a police report, if the Magistrate finds it proper to take further evidence or conduct further investigation (to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground to proceed against accused), only enabling provision in the CrPC is Sec. 202 / S. 225 BNSS .
  (iii) after taking cognizance, the Magistrate cannot go back to the pre-cognisance stage, Sec. 156(3) / S. 175(3) BNSS.
  (iv) Sec. 202 CrPC / S. 225 BNSS expressly provides for taking further evidence or conducting further investigation by the Magistrate, after taking cognizance on a police report also.**
  _{[** Note: It is not confined to “Complaint”. The term used is not mere “complaint”. It can also be a ‘complaint of an offence’ in a Charge also. It is clear from the words in Sec. 202 CrPC / S. 225 BNSS – “on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance the Magistrate can ‘either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer'” ]}
• Under Sec. 202 CrPC / S. 225 BNSS , the Magistrate is required to act upon “receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Sec. 192“; and he can exercise following powers –
  • “enquire into the case himself or
  • ordering further investigation, through police or any other person”
• Note: Sec. 192 is in Chapter XIV, Conditions Requisite for Initiation of Proceedings; and Sec. 202 CrPC is in Chapter XV, Complaints to Magistrates. But, Sec. 202 CrPC deals with a matter “made over to him under Sec. 192 CrPC”. It can include a Police Report.
• Therefore, it is clear that the “Receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance” [in Sec. 202 CrPC / S. 225 BNSS ] is used in wider sense. It includes Police Report (See: Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, (1976) 3 SCC 252).
• In other words, ‘complaint of an offence’, “made over to him under section 192“, stated in Sec. 202 CrPC / S. 225 BNSS , being refers to a Police Report (made over) also, it is clear – “complaint of an offence” [in Sec. 202 CrPC / S. 225 BNSS ] is used in a wider sense (and it is noteworthy – the term used is not mere “complaint”).
• Sec. 192 says: “Any Chief Judicial Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an offence, makeover the case for enquiry or trial to any competent Magistrate …” (It is not ‘Complaint’ alone.)
• In short, Magistrate can ‘enquire into the case himself’ or ‘order further investigation’, upon a police report [Refer Report or Charge], which refers to “complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance” (without accepting the Police Report, as such) under Sec. 202 CrPC / S. 225 BNSS .
• Power of Magistrate under S. 156(3) / S. 175(3) BNSS is Limited, for he cannot travel into the area of merit of the case (it is to be done in trial).  Similarly, the scope of S 202 CrPC / S. 225 BNSS is also limited for it is only for helping the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground to proceed – that is, if ‘prima facie’ ground, the Magistrate has to proceed.
• There is no specific provision that allows the Magistrate to give specific directions as to investigation (to police) in ‘further investigation‘ also.
• Concisely, the Code/Sanhita does not allow or direct the Magistrate to “give directions” or to “monitor” the investigation (while it is done by the police).

The above views can be supported by Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, (1976) 3 SCC 252.

• (Note: This decision is not followed in subsequent decisions – Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat (RF Nariman, J.), AIR 2019 SC  5233, Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah,  1997-7 SCC 614, etc.; and it is observed that Magistrate could, under Section 173(8)  CrPC / S. 193(9) BNSS, direct ‘further investigation’.

Police Investigation u/Sec. 156(3) CrPC & 202(1) CrPC / S. 175(3) BNSS & S. 225(1) BNSS – Two Operate in Distinct Spheres

In Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, (1976) 3 SCC 252, it is pointed out as under:

• “17. Section 156(3) occurs in Chapter XII, under the caption: “Information to the Police and their powers to investigate”; while Section 202 is in Chapter XV which bears the heading: “Of complaints to Magistrates”.
• The power to order police investigation under Section 156(3) is different from the power to direct investigation conferred by Section 202(1). The two operate in distinct spheres at different stages. The first is exercisable at the precognizance stage, the second at the post-cognizance stage when the Magistrate is in seisin of the case. ….. But if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon the procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he is not competent to switch back to the pre-cognizance stage and avail of Section 156(3). …… On the other hand, Section 202 comes in at a stage when some evidence has been collected by the Magistrate in proceedings under Chapter XV, but the same is deemed insufficient to take a decision as to the next step in the prescribed procedure. In such a situation, the Magistrate is empowered under Section 202 to direct, within the limits circumscribed by that section an investigation “for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding”. Thus the object of an investigation under Section 202 is not to initiate a fresh case on police report but to assist the Magistrate in completing proceedings already instituted upon a complaint before him.” (Followed in Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh (1977) 4 SCC 459; and Quoted in Anand Kumar Pandey v. State of U. P. , 2020-1 All.CR 899)

S. 156(3) / S. 175(3) BNSS – Power of Magistrate, Limited

In Anju Chaudhary v. State Of U.P., 2013 (6) SCC 384 (Madan B. Lokur,  Swatanter Kumar JJ.), it is pointed out as under:

• “38. Thus, the Magistrate exercises a very limited power under Section 156(3) and so is its discretion. It does not travel into the arena of merit of the case if such case was fit to proceed further.” (Quoted in: Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri, 2023-2 Crimes(SC) 384.)

S. 202 CrPC / S. 225 BNSS – Power of Magistrate, Limited

In Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan, 2006-1 SCC (Cri.) 460, laid down the relevant principles under Sec. 202 CrPC as under:

• “9. But a Magistrate need not order any such investigation if he proposes to take cognizance of the offence. Once he takes cognizance of the offence he has to follow the procedure envisaged in Chapter XV of the Code. A reading of Section 202(1) of the Code makes the position clear that the investigation referred to therein is of a limited nature. The Magistrate can direct such an investigation to be made either by a police officer or by any other person. Such investigation is only for helping the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further. This can be discerned from the culminating words in Section 202(1) i.e. “or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.”
• 10. This is because he has already taken cognizance of the offence disclosed in the complaint, and the domain of the case would thereafter vest with him.”

Magistrate can Take Cognizance even if Police Report is – No Case Made Out

In Jitender Mehta v. Shivani Mehta, (M.K. Hanjura, J.), AIR OnLine 2018 J & K 546;  2018 Kash LJ 918, it is held as under:

• “23. The position is, thus, clear that when a Magistrate receives police report under Section 173(2), he is entitled to take cognizance of an offence even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused. The Magistrate can take into account the statements of the witnesses examined by the police during the investigation and other material collected during investigation and form his own opinion independently without being bound by the conclusions arrived at by the investigating agency and take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code and direct the issue of process to the accused.”

Part IV

LEGISLATIVE INTENT AS TRANSPIRED IN BNSS, 2023 :

The Parliament revamped and recast the Procedure Code. Despite the discordant views of the Courts in India, on powers of Magistrate, to order reinvestigation and ‘monitoring investigation’, no change is made to the relevant provisions relating to the same. It speaks volume.

Conclusion

The key question emerges, in the light of the divergent views (expressed by the Apex Court itself) discussed here, is – whether the Magistrate should have the authority to ‘monitor’ the Police?

The answer depends on two points –

• First, what are the provisions (or scheme) declared in the CrPC/BNSS as regards the powers of the Magistrate; and
• Secondly, are the Police incompetent and unreliable, and must be monitored by Magistrates; and are the Magistrates “unerringly impeccable” (in evaluating Police reports/analyses)?

As regards the first point, the law indicates – it does not install the Magistrate in an exalted position. But, it may be true, our Apex Court has reposed faith in judiciary, as it has found, from experience, some restraints, upon the Police, are essential. Thereby the law laid down by our Apex Court may be in-tune-with-times.

As regards the second point, it is, definitely, not correct at all to impute that Police is susceptible to be guided by power brokers and purloined by the political functionaries. It is more definite that the attribution of imprudence to the class of Magistrates is absolutely wrong.

In short, clear and precise laws are essential. Authoritative legislation duly deliberated by our Parliament’s wisdom will be universally accepted; and it alone can resolve the disputes in this arena.

End Notes

Section 155: Simplify the paragraph.

• Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases
• (1). When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer, the informant to the Magistrate.
• (2). No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.
• (3). Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.
• (4).Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.

Section 156:

• Police Officer’s power to investigate cognisable case.
• (1) Any officer-in-charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognisable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
• (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
• (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned.

Section 190:

• Cognizance of offences by Magistrates: 
• (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under subsection (2), may take cognizance of any offence-
• (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;
• (b) upon a police report of such facts;
• (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
• (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under subsection (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.

Section 191:

• Transfer on application of the accused:
• When a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 190, the accused shall, before any evidence is taken, be informed that he is entitled to have the case inquired into or tried by another Magistrate, and if the accused or any of the accused, if there be more than one, objects to further proceedings before the Magistrate taking cognizance, the case shall be transferred to such other Magistrate as may be specified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in this behalf.

Section 192:

• Making over of cases to Magistrates: 
• (1) Any Chief Judicial Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an offence, makeover the case for enquiry or trial to any competent Magistrate subordinate to him.
  (2) Any Magistrate of the first class empowered in this behalf by the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an offence, makeover the case for enquiry or trial to such other competent Magistrate as the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, by general or special order, specify, and thereupon such Magistrate may hold the inquiry or trial.

Section 200

• Examination of complainant:
• A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate;
• Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses, if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 192;
• Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them.

Section 202

• Postponement of issue of process.
• (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192
  • may, if he thinks fit,
  • and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction
• postpone the issue of process against the accused, and
  • either inquire into the case himself or
  • direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit,
• for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:
• Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made, –
  • (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or
  • (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200.
• (2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath :
• Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath.
• (3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Court on an officer-in-charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.

Section 204

• Issue of process.
• (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be –
• (a) a summons case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or
• (b) a warrant case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.
• (2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed.
• (3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint.
• (4) When by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint.
• (5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of section 87.

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

---

---

Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

• Order IX Rule 9 CPC: Earlier Suit for Injunction; Subsequent Suit for Recovery & Injunction – No Bar
• Replication, Rejoinder and Amendment of Pleadings
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Suit under Sec. 6, Specific Relief Act – Is it a ‘Summary Suit’ under Order XXXVII CPC?
• Is it Mandatory to Lift the Attachment on Dismissal of the Suit? Will the Attachment Orders Get Revived on Restoration of Suit?
• Will Interlocutory Orders and Applications Get Revived on Restoration of Suit?
• Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s Witness?
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
• Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Pleadings in Defamation Suits
• Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery Suit
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
• PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
• Declaration and Injunction
• Law on Summons to Defendants and Witnesses
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
• Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
• Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties
• Pecuniary & Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in a Suit by or against an Association
• Who are Necessary Parties, Proper Parties and Pro Forma Parties in Suits
• What is Partnership, in Law? How to Sue a Firm?
• ‘Legal Representatives’, Not ‘Legal Heirs’ to be Impleaded on Death of Plaintiff/Defendant
• Powers and Duties of Commissioners to Make Local Investigations, Under CPC
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a Decree
• Is it Mandatory to Set Aside the Commission Report – Where a Second Commissioner is Appointed?
• Can a Commission be Appointed to Find Out the Physical Possession of a Property?
• Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
• Pendente Lite Transferee Cannot Resist or Obstruct Execution of a Decree
• Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
• ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
• Will Findings of a Civil Court Outweigh Findings of a Criminal Court?
• Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
• Waiver and Promissory Estoppel
• Can a Christian Adopt? Will an adopted child get share in the property of adoptive parents?
• Principles of Equity in Indian Law
• Thangam v.  Navamani Ammal: Did the Supreme Court lay down – Written Statements which deal with each allegation specifically, but not “para-wise”, are vitiated?
• No Criminal Case on a Dispute Essentially Civil in Nature.
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in Suits
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?

Principles and Procedure

• Ratio Decidendi (alone) Forms a Precedent, Not a Final Order
• BNSS – Major Changes from CrPC
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Important Changes from the Indian Penal Code
• Substantive Rights and Mistakes & Procedural Defects in Judicial Proceedings
• Will Boundaries of Properties (Always) Preferred Over Survey Number, Extent, Side Measurements, etc.?
• All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not Illegal
• Doctrines on Ultra Vires, Rule of Law, Judicial Review, Nullification of Mandamus, and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment
• Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s Witness?
• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
• Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross-Examination by the Witness
• Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to Witnesses
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Declaration and Injunction
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
• Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions
• Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
• Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
• Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
• What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a Magistrate?

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

• ‘Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet’
• Section 27, Limitation Act Gives-Rise to a Substantive Right so as to Seek Declaration and Recovery
• Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
• Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian Law
• Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier Possession
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
• Title and Ownership in Indian Law
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
• 22nd Law Commission  Report on ‘Law on Adverse Possession’
• Adverse Possession Against Government
• Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
• How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• Preemption is a Very Weak Right; For, Property Right is a Constitutional & Human Right
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
• Kesar Bai v. Genda Lal – Does Something Remain Untold?
• Grant in Law
• Termination of Tenancy (& Grant) by Forfeiture (for Claiming Title)

Adverse Possession

• How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession Against Government
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
• ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• Ouster and Dispossession in Adverse Possession
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

• Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian Law
• Freehold Property in Law
• What is Patta or Pattayam?
• Does ‘Pandaravaka Pattom’ in Kerala Denote Full-Ownership?
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery Suit
• Vested Remainder and Contingent Remainder
• Vested interest and Contingent Interest
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• Land Acquired Cannot be Returned – Even if it is Not Used for the Purpose Acquired
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Marumakkathayam – A System of Law and Way of Life Prevailed in Kerala
• Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
• Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
• ‘Janmam’ Right is FREEHOLD Interest and ‘Estate’ in Constitution – By Royal Proclamation of 1899, The Travancore Sircar became Janmi of Poonjar Raja’s Land
• Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala.
• Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
• Law on Acquisition of Private Plantation Land in KeralaLaw on SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE and LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
• Plantation Exemption in Kerala Land Reforms Act–in a Nutshell
• Kerala Land Reforms Act – Provisions on Plantation-Tenancy and Land-Tenancy
• Sec. 7 Easements Act – Natural Advantages Arising from the Situation of Land & Natural Flow of Water
• Grant in Law

Power of attorney

• No Adjudication If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
• Permission when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit
• If Power of Attorney himself Executes the Document, S. 33 Registration Act will NOT be attracted
• Should a Power of Attorney for Sale must have been Registered –
• Is Registered Power of Attorney Necessary for Registration of a Deed? No.

Evidence Act – General

• Newspaper Reports are ‘Hearsay Secondary Evidence’
• Major Changes in the Evidence Act by Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Evidence in Court – General Principles
• Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• What is Collateral Purpose?
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
• Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross Examination by the Witness
• Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to Witnesses
• Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
• Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• What is Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery or Discovery?
• How ‘Discovery’ under Section 27, Evidence Act, Proved?
• Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act

Sec. 65B

• Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Sec. 65B (Electronic Records) and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
• Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
• ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
• Sec. 65B,  Evidence Act: Certificate forms
• Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
• How to Prove ‘Whatsap Messages’, ‘Facebook’ and ‘Website’ in Courts?

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• Modes of Proof of Documents
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a Decree
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
• Prem Raj v.  Poonamma Menon (SC), April 2, 2024 – An Odd Decision on ‘Civil Court Judgment does not Bind Criminal Court’

Law on Documents

• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
• Time Limit for Registration of Documents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of India
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
• Are RTI Documents Admissible in Evidence as ‘Public Documents’?
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Effect of Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
• What is Collateral Purpose?
• No Application Needed for Filing or Admitting Copy
• Presumptions on Documents and Truth of Contents
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Modes of Proof of Documents
• Secondary Evidence of Documents & Objections to Admissibility – How & When?
• 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in Registering Deeds
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
• Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Impounding of Documents – When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited

Interpretation

• Interpretation of Statutes – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
• Interpretation of Documents – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
• Interpretation of Wills
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence

Contract Act

• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Civil Laws
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
• All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not Illegal
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.

Law on Damages

• Law on Damages
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Law on Damages in Defamation Cases
• Pleadings in Defamation Suits

Easement

• Easement Simplified
• What is Easement? Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ After Making a Construction?
• Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
• Will Easement of Necessity Ripen into a Prescriptive Easement?
• What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit” in Easement by Prescription?
• Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
• Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity, Quasi Easement and Implied Grant
• Easement of Necessity and Prescriptive Easement are Mutually Destructive; But, Easement of Necessity and Implied Grant Can be Claimed Alternatively
• Can Easement of Necessity and of Grant be Claimed in a Suit (Alternatively)?
• “Implied Grant” in Law of Easements
• Can an Easement-Way be Altered by the Owner of the Land?
• Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
• Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
• ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition
• Grant in Law
• Right of Private Way Beyond (Other Than) Easement
• Easement – Should Date of Beginning of 20 Years be pleaded?
• One Year Interruption or Obstruction will not affect Prescriptive Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

• Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in Registering Deeds
• Time-Limit For Adjudication of Unstamped Documents, before Collector
• Time Limit for Registration of Documents
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of India
• LAW ON INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED DOCUMENTS 
• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Impounding of Documents, When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration

Divorce/Marriage

• Presumption of Valid Marriage – If lived together for Long Spell
• Validity of Foreign Divorce Decrees in India
• Is ‘Irretrievable Brake-down of Marriage’, a Valid Ground for Divorce in India?
• Foreign Divorce Judgment against Christians having Indian Domicile

Negotiable Instruments Act

• Does Cheque-Case under Sec. 138, NI Act Lie Against a Trust?
• Sec. 138 NI Act (Cheque) Cases: Presumption of Consideration u/s. 118
• Even if ‘Signed-Blank-Cheque’, No Burden on Complainant to Prove Consideration; Rebuttal can be by a Probable Defence
• “Otherwise Through an Account” in Section 142, NI Act
• Where to file Cheque Bounce Cases (Jurisdiction of Court – to file NI Act Complaint)?
• Cheque Dishonour Case against a Company, Firm or Society
• What is ‘Cognizance’ in Law
• What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a Magistrate?

Arbitration

• Seesaw of Supreme Court in NN Global Mercantile v. Indo Unique Flame
• N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. and Ground Realities of Indian Situation
• What are Non-Arbitrable Disputes? When a Dispute is Not Referred to Arbitration in spite of Arbitration Clause
• Termination or Nullity of Contract Will Not Cease Efficacy of the Arbitration Clause
• No Valid Arbitration Agreement ‘Exists’ – Can Arbitration Clause be Invoked?

Will

• Witnesses to the Will Need Not See the Execution of the Will
• Interpretation of Wills
• Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a Will
• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Executors of Will – Duties & their Removal
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
• How to Write a Will? Requirements of a Valid Will
• When Execution of a Will is ‘Admitted’ by the Opposite Side, Should it be ‘Proved’?
• A Witness to Hindu-Will will not Lose Benefit

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

• Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and Instances
• Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an Enactment?
• Separation of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature or Judiciary?
• Kesavananda Bharati Case: Never Ending Controversy
• Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal Issues
• Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court Interference
• Maratha Backward Community Reservation: SC Fixed Limit at 50%.
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• CAA Challenge: Divergent Views
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Doctrines on Ultra Vires and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment, in ED Director’s Tenure Extension Case (Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India)
• Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India – Mandamus (Given in a Case) Cannot be Annulled by Changing the Law
• Art. 370 – Turns the Constitution on Its Head

Religious issues

• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
• ‘Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’
• No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits) Why?
• Parsi Women – Excommunication for Marrying Outside
• Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
• SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case –Pragmatic Verdict

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

• General
  • General Features
  • Bye Laws Fundamental
  • Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of Clubs
  • Societies and Branches
• Property & Trust
  • Vesting of Property in Societies and Clubs
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Juristic Personality
  • Juristic Personality of Societies and Clubs
  • Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers
• Suits
  • Suits and Criminal Complaints By and Against a Company
  • Suits By or Against Societies, Clubs
  • Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs
  • How to Sue Societies, Clubs and Companies
• Amendment and Dissolution
  • Amendment of Bye laws of Societies and Clubs
  • Dissolution of Societies and Clubs
• Rights and Management
  • Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and Societies
  • Individual Membership Rights in Societies & Clubs
  • Management – Powers of General Body and Governing Body
  • Expulsion of Members & Removal of Office-Bearers
  • Law on Meetings: An Overview
• Election
  • Election & Challenge in Societies and Clubs
  • Court Interference in Election Process
• State Actions
  • State-Interference in Affairs of Societies & Clubs

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

• General Principles
  • What is Trust in Law?
  • Classification of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts in India.
  • Trust is ‘An Obligation’; Not a Legal Entity
  • Indian Law Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual Ownership
• Dedication and Vesting
  • Dedication of Property in Public Trusts
  • Vesting of Property in Trusts
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Trustees and Management
  • Trustees and Administration of Public Trusts
  • Alienation of Public Trust Property
  • Extinction, Discharge, Revocation, etc. of Public Trusts
  • Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920: Provisions as regards opinion, advice or direction of the Court.
• Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
• Suits by or against Trusts
  • Suits By or Against Trusts and Trustees
  • Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
  • Does Cheque-Case under Sec. 138, NI Act Lie Against a Trust?
• Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
  • Philosophy of Idol Worship
  • Is an Idol a Perpetual Minor?
  • Hindu Temples & Law of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts
  • Law of Mutts and Other Hindu Endowments
  • Shebaits & Mahants and Law of Trustees
• Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
  • Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
• Constitutional Principles
  • Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
  • Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
  • ‘Muslim Women: Ban to Enter Mosques, Is it Unconstitutional
  • Parsi Women Excommunication, Unconstitutional.
  • Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
  • State & Court – Protectors of All Charities
• Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
  • Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case – Pragmatic Verdict
  • Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
  • SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• General
  • Public Trusts and (State) Endowments/Trusts Acts
  • Public Trusts and Indian Trusts Act – An Overview
  • Business by Charitable Trusts & Institutions