Court asks CP for inquiry into registration of fake FIRs

Court asks CP for inquiry into registration of fake FIRs

PTI

New Delhi, Aug 1 (PTI) A court here has asked the Delhi Police Commissioner to get an inquiry done into the registration of fake FIRs after noting that a witness, who was termed as complainant in a robbery case, had denied the occurrence of any such incident.

Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau noted the police officers had registered two FIRs on the alleged robbery of a mobile phone, which was handed over to the complainant in one case, after it was pointed out by Shivendra Biswas, counsel for one of the accused.

The complainant, Nitin, said while recording the statement before the court that no incident of robbery as alleged had taken place. He deposed that he was taken to the Jahangirpuri police station in March where the case was registered at the instance of one Kuldeep Soni who ran a news channel in the name of K-7 News channel. It was pointed out to the court by the counsel that Nitin had testified that he took one old mobile phone from Vishwajeet whereas Vishwajeet had himself lodged another case for the robbery of the same phone. "I am shocked to observe that the allegations and narration of the incident is absolutely similar in both the FIRs,"

ASJ Lau said. "If what has been testified by the witness Nitin that the present FIR has been registered on an incident which never took place is correct, then it is a serious matter that life and liberty of four young boys has been curtailed in violations of all existing norms," the court added. It said an offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code would be made out not only against Kuldeep Soni but also against all such officers of Police Station Jahangir Puri who were involved in registration and investigations of the present case in respect of an incident which did not happen.

The court asked the police chief to get the matter investigated by an independent agency to get to its bottom and file a report to it within 15 days. It also directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (north-west) to ensure safety and security of 18-year-old Nitin by saying that no public person, including Kuldeep, and police officers of Jahangirpuri police station should approach him. The court also allowed bail application of all the accused, except one, who were arrested in the case.

http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/court-asks-cp-for-inquiry-into-registration-of-fake-firs/230883.html

Lok Sabha clears Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 2010 curbing police powers

Lok Sabha clears Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 2010 curbing police powers

 

IANS, Aug 12, 2010, 07.53pm IST

NEW DELHI: The Lok Sabha Thursday approved the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 2010, that makes policing more transparent. Under it a police officer will compulsorily have to keep a written record justifying the arrest or freeing an accused wanted in a crime that carries imprisonment up to seven years.

The bill was passed by a voice vote after home minister P Chidambaram introduced it in the Lok Sabha.

"The amendment increases the transparency of a policeman's action as he has to justify arresting or not arresting an accused and keep a written record of it," Chidambaram told the house.

The amendment once enacted would mean that the police cannot make needless arrests or, under pressure or duress, let go people who may be wanted in crimes punishable with imprisonment for a term seven years or more.

The legislation is aimed to curb arbitrariness of police arrests. Since the reasons have to be recorded in writing, the legislation fixes the responsibility and makes a police officer justify the arrest or letting go of an accused.

The written record would be subjected to judicial scrutiny and recording an arbitrary reason would be difficult for police. It lays a large emphasis on investigation before the arrest is made.

The bill has to go to Rajya Sabha now before being enacted into law.

The home minster said the bill also carries a clause according to which if "a person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of police notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice".

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Lok-Sabha-clears-bill-curbing-police-powers-/articleshow/6300638.cms

also more news @

NEW DELHI: A bill, seeking to amend a section of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) with regard to arrest of a person, was passed by the Lok Sabha with the government asserting that it would reduce "arbitrariness" in apprehension of people and bring about transparency.

The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 2010, passed by voice vote after a debate, provides for mandatory recording of reasons in the case of arrest or non-arrest of a person suspected in a cognizable offence for which the jail term is less than seven years.

Prior to the amendment to Section 41 of the CrPC Act, the law said a police officer "may" record reasons of arrest or non-arrest of a person, Home Minister P Chidambaram said while replying to the debate.

According to the amended bill, if a person is not arrested in a non-cognizable offence, police will have to issue notice to him to join investigations.

The prevailing law says a police officer "may" issue a notice to a person, who is not arrested, for joining investigation. The amendment, making it mandatory to issue notice for joining the investigation, is to ensure that the person does not delay the probe by not cooperating, Chidambaram said.

If anybody, on whom a notice is served, refuses to identify himself, he will be arrested forthwith, he said. Justifying the amendments, Chidambaram said, "This is to ensure that "arbitrariness" is reduced or "at least the scope of arbitrariness is reduced."

Rejecting suggestions that the amendments could enable police to misuse powers, he said it would bring about transparency in the system of arrests. "Give it a fair trial of six months or so," the Home Minister said while seeking endorsement of the House to the amendment Bill. On the recording of reasons in case of arrest, he said the arrested person would have a right to approach a court to challenge the action if he is not convinced.

Similarly, in case of non-arrest, the complainant can approach a court to question the police action, he said. Talking about overall police system in the country, he said the Centre had framed a Model Police Act in 2006 but states were "not forthcoming" to bring their police laws in tune with it despite being repeatedly asked to. "It is my intention to continue pressing the states," he said.

 

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/Lok-Sabha-passes-bill-to-amend-CrPC-on-provision-of-arrest/articleshow/6300679.cms

What can we do, if our orders are not obeyed: Apex court

New Delhi, Aug 3

Hearing a plea seeking arrest of a politician's musclemen, the Supreme Court Tuesday said policing is not a part of its mandate and it could not help if its orders were not being executed by the law enforcing agencies.

"If our orders are not being obeyed, then what can we do? We are not police," said an apex court bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice T.S. Thakur.

The bench was disposing a petition seeking enforcement of its earlier order directing the arrest of alleged musclemen of former Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP and Bihar's criminal-turned-politician Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav.

The petitioner Rabinder Nath Singh moved the apex court seeking direction for enforcement of its earlier order by which it had cancelled the bail of Pappu Yadav and had said that he should be taken into custody forthwith.

On May 3, the apex court cancelled the bail of Pappu Yadav who was earlier granted bail by the Patna High Court.

Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel Amarendra Saran asked the court to issue direction for the immediate arrest of Pappu Yadav. He told the court that Pappu Yadav was absconding and the court should order his arrest.

At this, Justice Katju said that judges of the Supreme Court do not have a magic wand and could not be expected to do everything for the execution of their directions.

Justice Thakur said the petitioner could also move the high court for the implementation of the apex court's direction.

The bench asked the petitioner to approach the competent authority which would "do the needful" for the execution of the apex court's May 3 order directing the arrest of Pappu Yadav.

http://www.prokerala.com/news/articles/a156133.html