Referred to Larger Bench XXII: Mandatory Preliminary Inquiry

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray
CrPC

My Lord, Preliminary Inquiry u/Section 340 – Mandatory – Before Complaint u/Section 195?

“In any event, given Three-Judge Bench in Sharad Pawar, (2010) 15 SCC 290 did not assign any reason as to why it was departing from a Coordinate Bench in Pritish, (2002) 1 SCC 253 and a Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370, we find it necessary a Larger Bench answers, in particular, i) whether Section 340 mandates a ‘preliminary inquiry’ and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a ‘complaint’ under Section 195 and ii) what is the scope and ambit of such ‘preliminary inquiry’.”

– Hon’ble Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh, [Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2020].

_____

It appears, Reference to a Larger Bench is still pending.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 103 of 2009] decided on 14.07.2022. 

_____

Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370 would naturally prevail. What is reported in Sharad Pawar, (2010) 15 SCC 290 is not a Judgment.

– Hon’ble Judges Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka and Vikram Nath, State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh, [Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2020] decided on 15.09.2022.

'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.