FIR validity - The Legal Chamber

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that mere presence in a crowd does not automatically constitute membership in an unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC. To establish constructive liability, the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that each accused shared the common object of the assembly, distinguishing active participants from passive bystanders. Conviction requires cogent and consistent evidence linking the individual to the assembly's objective. Facts Of The Case: On 20 November 1988, at around 8:00 AM, informant Jagdish Mahato (PW-20) and his brother Meghu Mahato went to inspect their settled agricultural land in Baharkhal, Bihar. They allegedly found a large mob of 400-500 persons from the neighboring village of Mahila, many armed with weapons like guns, spears, ...

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 195 CrPC does not bar prosecution for tampering with court records after proceedings conclude, as such acts no longer affect "proceedings in court" under Section 195(1)(b). It held that fabricating documents in record rooms post-withdrawal constitutes standalone offences under IPC, not requiring court-sanctioned complaints. The judgment clarified that Section 195 applies only when offences directly impact live judicial proceedings or documents in active court custody, distinguishing between administrative record-keeping and judicial administration of justice. The Court affirmed that FIRs remain valid for post-proceeding forgeries. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a 2005 FIR lodged by the Registrar of Bharuch District Court against Parshotta...

Tag: FIR validity

The “Unlawful Assembly” Test: Supreme Court Explains When Mere Presence at a Crime Scene Isn’t Enough

Supreme Court Clarifies Section 195 CrPC Doesn’t Protect Post-Proceeding Forgery”: Courts Records Safety