distinction between the provisions contained in Section 156(3) and Section 202(1) of Cr.PC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS……………OF 2023

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 2849-2854 OF 2022)

CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY ...APPELLANT

Versus

STATE OF KERALA & ANR. …RESPONDENTS

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 1487-1493 OF 2022

EPARCHY OF BATHERY, REP. THROUGH

MOST REV. DR. JOSEPH MAR THOMAS ... PETITIONER

Versus

STATE Of KERALA & ORS. ETC. ... RESPONDENTS

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). ……… OF 2023

ARISING OUT OF DIARY NO. 7364 OF 2022)

CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF THAMARASSERY … PETITIONER

REP. THROUGH MAR REMEGIOSE INCHANAYIL

Versus

STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ETC. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

11. In Ramdev Food Products Private Vs. State of Gujarat2

while

drawing distinction between the provisions contained in Section

156(3) and Section 202(1) of Cr.PC, this Court examined the

scheme of the said sections and after discussing various earlier

decisions concluded as under:-

“38. In Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana

Reddy [(1976) 3 SCC 252: 1976 SCC (Cri) 380], National Bank

of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz [(2013) 2 SCC 488: (2013) 2

SCC (Cri) 731], Madhao v. State of Maharashtra [(2013) 5 SCC

615: (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 141], Rameshbhai Pandurao

Hedau v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 4 SCC 185 : (2010) 2 SCC

(Cri) 801] , the scheme of Sections 156(3) and 202 has been

discussed. It was observed that power under Section 156(3) can

be invoked by the Magistrate before taking cognizance and was

in the nature of pre-emptory reminder or intimation to the police

to exercise its plenary power of investigation beginning with

Section 156 and ending with report or charge-sheet under

Section 173. On the other hand, Section 202 applies at postcognizance stage and the direction for investigation was for the

purpose of deciding whether there was sufficient ground to

proceed.”