The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Cr.P.C) is a procedural law which provides a mechanism in which way the criminal trial to be conducted. It gives the administration of criminal law. The primary object of the criminal justice system is to ensure that the trial is to be fair. The accused can prove their innocents through this trial and the guilty person should not be escaped from the punishment. The trial began after framing the charge and end with the judge’s declaration. The trial classified into two schedules the offenses classified under I.P.C. and the offenses classified other than I.P.C. The nature of the trial depends on the seriousness of the offense.
Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C starting with sec.225 and ending with sec.237 deals with the manners on which the trial to occur before a court Session. A prosecution should be conducted by a public prosecutor before a court session. When accused come before the court the public prosecutor should open the case by describing the charge brought against the accused and the evidence that proves his guilt. After considering the evidence from the prosecutor and the accused the session court make a decision. If the documents produced by the prosecutor have no grounds for proceeding against the accused, session court shall discharge the accused. If the judge found the documents proves the accused guilty, then he makes decision about the charge and he will write it. At this stage, the judge will only consider the prosecution’s document and he will not consider any documents from the accused.
Chapter XIV of Cr.P.C deals with the provisions to handle the complaint cases. Section 190 to 204 deals with the evidence of cases and section 190(1) says that the Magistrate can take evidence of offense upon a complaint, upon a police report or upon his own knowledge or report from another person. Chapter XV of Cr.P.C says about the procedure to follow by the Magistrate when a complaint is made to him. The Magistrate can enquire the evidence by himself or with the help of the police. After the investigation, the court will examine the documents and if it found wrong then the accused will be dismissed and if it found true then the Magistrate will issue the summons.
1. *Lalita Kumari v. State of UP* :FIR mandatory in cognizable cases
2. *Mohd. Ahmad Khan vs Shah Bano Begum* :Section 125 of CrPC Secular
3. *D.K. Basu v. State of Bengal* :SC guidelines relating to rights of the arrested person
4. *Nilabati Bahera v. State of Orissa* :Compensation in case of unlawful arrest and detention
5. *Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra* :Rights of women relating to arrest
6. *Joginder Kumar v. State of UP* :SC guidelines relating to rights of the arrested person
7. *Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha* :Right of maintenance in Live-in-Relationships
8. *Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar* :Filing of Multiple FIR
9. *Satya Pal Singh v. State of MP* :Father of deceased victim has right to appeal
10. *State of UP v. Singhara Singh* :Section 164 by necessary implication prohibits the magistrate from giving oral evidence of the confession made to him
11. *State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rustum* :Computation of period of 60/90 Days u/s 167 of CrPC
12. *CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni* :Police Remand can not exceed 15 Days
13. *Mubarak Ali v. State of Bombay* :Offence triable where the act is done
14. *Shakuntala Devi v. State of U.P.* :Availability of Civil Remedy does not bar filing of a case u/s 200 of CrPC
15. *Dina Nath v. Emperor* :No summary trial in serious or complicated cases
16. *Surendra Singh v. State of UP* :Where a Judge who wrote the Judgment dies before it was delivered or pronounced, another Judge can not deliver it
17. *Naresh v. State of UP* :Alteration of Conviction u/s 302 IPC to one u/s 304 IPC by HC is not justified u/s 362 of CrPC
18. *Ashok Kumar v. UOI* :Constitutional validity of Section 433-A of CrPC
19. *Rasiklal v. Kishore Khanchand Wadhwani* :Right to bail u/s 436 in bailable offences is an absolute and in bcdefeasible right
20. *Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab* :SC guidelines relating to anticipatory bail.
21. Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar,2014(1)TVT 1(SC) Arrest cannot be made in a routine manner in 498-A cases.