Site navigation

In which of the following cases did the Supreme Court hold that the statutory bar on taking cognizance…

In State of Punjab v. Raj Singh, (1998) 2 SCC 391, the Supreme Court held that the statutory bar on taking cognizance without a written complaint (now Section 215 of the…

Choose your answer

In which of the following cases did the Supreme Court hold that the statutory bar on taking cognizance of offences against public justice or contempt of lawful authority of public servants (now Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) comes into operation only at the stage when the Court intends to take cognizance of an offence (now under Section 210(1) of the Sanhita), and that it does not control or circumscribe the statutory power of the police to investigate an F.I.R. disclosing a cognizable offence?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer B

In State of Punjab v. Raj Singh, (1998) 2 SCC 391, the Supreme Court held that the statutory bar on taking cognizance without a written complaint (now Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; formerly Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) applies only at the stage when the Court intends to take cognizance under Section 210(1) of the Sanhita (formerly Section 190(1)), and does not restrict or circumscribe the police's statutory power to investigate an F.I.R. disclosing a cognizable offence. State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253 dealt with confessions under TADA, Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831 dealt with the constitutional powers of the President and Governor, and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Tara Dutt, (2000) 1 SCC 230 dealt with condonation of delay in taking cognizance.

Practice for these exams

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic