Thank god! Ultimately I found solution of my problem. I spent my entire day reading section 187 of BNSS..... I have been doing work on it since morning......and it's you who disclosed the real fact of this section being vague........Thanks a lot sir !
As per your opinion sir I am confused by your statement regarding FIR, Section173(3) Use the following phrase, "On receipt of information relating to the cognizance of any offence " By considering above phrase I understand that there is no mandatory for register FIR all those Offences which are punishable from 3 to 7 years, However maybe if above phrase would be like this , "After recording information as aforesaid under section173(1) Officer in charge of the police station may with the prior permission from not below the rank of DSP, considering the nature and gravity of the offence either preliminary equiry or investigate ,
Sir sec 187 sub-sec (4)accused in custody of police and sub-sec(5) detention in custody of police, explanation || proviso 2nd police custody or judicial custody, word expressly use kiya gaya hai... Fir ap kaise bol rahe k police custody word use ni kiya gya..???
If FIR is registered then why there is need of Preliminary Enquiry ,PE is conducted only to ascertain whether any congnizable offence is committed or not ,once FIR is registered then every process become automatically part of investigation
What this new provision is saying that FIR kro lo lekin investigation hum police wale apne Mann se krenge ( as we all know the police wale kitna kaam krte hai har case ko kitna serious lete hai) unko to opportunity mil gai ab ki wo har ese case ko ( Jo less than 7 years crime wale) uski investigation na hone de or victim bhatkta reh jaye. DSP ko request krta baithe FIR hone k baad bhi .. This new provision only gives more power to the police to not do anything or not take crime/ offence seriously.
Sir standing committee ki reports ki help interpretation me le sakte haina? Just confirming Is kalpana Mehta v. UOI 2021 relevant on this part? Asking this bcz u discussed about this in the video. Thanks 😊
Yes, we can rely on such reports for interpretation. Also, we can rely on the parliamentary speech of the mover of the bill to interpret. The Home Minister in his speech stated that such custody is in reference to police custody. This is the reason that I construed the provision in this way.
