Justice S. Muralidhar – who until February 25, 2020 was at the Delhi High Court before being transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court – on February 24, 2020 reminded the police that it must act in line with the Lalita Kumari guidelines. The court was hearing a case about registering FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Kapil Mishra, and others who made alleged hate speeches that may have incited violence in the national capital.A by-product of the decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP and Others (2013), the Supreme Court established the Lalita Kumari guidelines which are a mandatory set of directions to be followed by the police when someone seeks to register a complaint. The guidelines lay down that the registration of an FIR (First Information Report) is binding under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, with no requirement for a preliminary investigation.A cognizable offence is one where the police are authorised to start an investigation or make an arrest without court authorisation. Inflammatory speech – covered by Section 153 and Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – is a cognizable offence.Even if the police felt that the complaints against Mishra and other BJP leaders did not reveal a cognizable offence, the guidelines oblige them to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the offence is cognizable or not. The scope of such an inquiry is not to authenticate the facts of the complaint, but only to confirm whether the offence alleged is cognizable. The preliminary inquiry has to be concluded within a week.If the inquiry reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR. Strict action must be implemented against officers who do not register the FIR, the guidelines say. However, in cases where the preliminary inquiry results in closing the complaint, the complainant must be informed in writing about the reasons for this within a week.Q. Consider that in the factual scenario presented in the earlier question, the police conducts a preliminary inquiry, and comes to a finding (within a week) that the speech by Reyan was inflammatory. What should be the next step by the police?a)Conduct a further inquiry in order to determine the true nature of the offence, without reasonable doubt.b)Arrest Reyan, as the nature of the offence has already been established.c)Wait for the court to pass orders that Reyan can be arrested.d)Wait for Riya to register an FIR.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Justice S. Muralidhar – who until February 2...

Join the Discussion on the App

A by-product of the decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP & Others (2013), the Supreme Court established the Lalita Kumari guidelines which are a mandatory set of directions to be followed by the police when someone seeks to register a complaint. The guidelines lay down that the registration of an FIR (First Information Report) is binding under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, with no requirement for a preliminary investigation.

A cognizable offence is one where the police are authorised to start an investigation or make an arrest without court authorisation. Inflammatory speech – covered by Section 153 and Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – is a cognizable offence.

Even if the police felt that the complaints against Mishra and other BJP leaders did not reveal a cognizable offence, the guidelines oblige them to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the offence is cognizable or not. The scope of such an inquiry is not to authenticate the facts of the complaint, but only to confirm whether the offence alleged is cognizable. The preliminary inquiry has to be concluded within a week.

If the inquiry reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR. Strict action must be implemented against officers who do not register the FIR, the guidelines say. However, in cases where the preliminary inquiry results in closing the complaint, the complainant must be informed in writing about the reasons for this within a week.

Q. Consider that in the factual scenario presented in the earlier question, the police conducts a preliminary inquiry, and comes to a finding (within a week) that the speech by Reyan was inflammatory. What should be the next step by the police?

a)
Conduct a further inquiry in order to determine the true nature of the offence, without reasonable doubt.
b)
Arrest Reyan, as the nature of the offence has already been established.
c)
Wait for the court to pass orders that Reyan can be arrested.
d)
Wait for Riya to register an FIR.

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

CLAT Practice Test - 15

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

Justice S. Muralidhar – who until February 25, 2020 was at the Delhi ...

Once the police conducted its preliminary inquiry and came to the conclusion that the speech was inflammatory, it is a cognizable offence. As explained in the passage, a cognizable offence is one where the police can commence investigation or arrest without the authorization of the court. Since the investigation has already been done by the police, their next goal would be to arrest Reyan.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Justice S. Muralidhar – who until February 25, 2020 was at the Delhi High Court before being transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court – on February 24, 2020 reminded the police that it must act in line with the Lalita Kumari guidelines. The court was hearing a case about registering FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Kapil Mishra, and others who made alleged hate speeches that may have incited violence in the national capital.A by-product of the decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP & Others (2013), the Supreme Court established the Lalita Kumari guidelines which are a mandatory set of directions to be followed by the police when someone seeks to register a complaint. The guidelines lay down that the registration of an FIR (First Information Report) is binding under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, with no requirement for a preliminary investigation.A cognizable offence is one where the police are authorised to start an investigation or make an arrest without court authorisation. Inflammatory speech – covered by Section 153 and Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – is a cognizable offence.Even if the police felt that the complaints against Mishra and other BJP leaders did not reveal a cognizable offence, the guidelines oblige them to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the offence is cognizable or not. The scope of such an inquiry is not to authenticate the facts of the complaint, but only to confirm whether the offence alleged is cognizable. The preliminary inquiry has to be concluded within a week.If the inquiry reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR. Strict action must be implemented against officers who do not register the FIR, the guidelines say. However, in cases where the preliminary inquiry results in closing the complaint, the complainant must be informed in writing about the reasons for this within a week.Q. Consider that in the factual scenario presented in the previous question, the police does conduct a preliminary inquiry. However, the inquiry was completed only within a month as Reyan was not in the country for some period. At the end of their inquiry, the police concluded that the speech was not inflammatory. Has the police followed the Lalita Kumari guidelines?

View answer

Justice S. Muralidhar – who until February 25, 2020 was at the Delhi High Court before being transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court – on February 24, 2020 reminded the police that it must act in line with the Lalita Kumari guidelines. The court was hearing a case about registering FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Kapil Mishra, and others who made alleged hate speeches that may have incited violence in the national capital.A by-product of the decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP & Others (2013), the Supreme Court established the Lalita Kumari guidelines which are a mandatory set of directions to be followed by the police when someone seeks to register a complaint. The guidelines lay down that the registration of an FIR (First Information Report) is binding under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, with no requirement for a preliminary investigation.A cognizable offence is one where the police are authorised to start an investigation or make an arrest without court authorisation. Inflammatory speech – covered by Section 153 and Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – is a cognizable offence.Even if the police felt that the complaints against Mishra and other BJP leaders did not reveal a cognizable offence, the guidelines oblige them to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the offence is cognizable or not. The scope of such an inquiry is not to authenticate the facts of the complaint, but only to confirm whether the offence alleged is cognizable. The preliminary inquiry has to be concluded within a week.If the inquiry reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR. Strict action must be implemented against officers who do not register the FIR, the guidelines say. However, in cases where the preliminary inquiry results in closing the complaint, the complainant must be informed in writing about the reasons for this within a week.Q. Consider that in the factual scenario presented in the previous question, the police registers an FIR and makes a preliminary inquiry and comes to the conclusion that the offence committed was not a cognizable one. It shuts the case. Has the police followed all the requirements of the Lalita Kumari guidelines?

View answer

Justice S. Muralidhar – who until February 25, 2020 was at the Delhi High Court before being transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court – on February 24, 2020 reminded the police that it must act in line with the Lalita Kumari guidelines. The court was hearing a case about registering FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Kapil Mishra, and others who made alleged hate speeches that may have incited violence in the national capital.A by-product of the decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP & Others (2013), the Supreme Court established the Lalita Kumari guidelines which are a mandatory set of directions to be followed by the police when someone seeks to register a complaint. The guidelines lay down that the registration of an FIR (First Information Report) is binding under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, with no requirement for a preliminary investigation.A cognizable offence is one where the police are authorised to start an investigation or make an arrest without court authorisation. Inflammatory speech – covered by Section 153 and Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – is a cognizable offence.Even if the police felt that the complaints against Mishra and other BJP leaders did not reveal a cognizable offence, the guidelines oblige them to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the offence is cognizable or not. The scope of such an inquiry is not to authenticate the facts of the complaint, but only to confirm whether the offence alleged is cognizable. The preliminary inquiry has to be concluded within a week.If the inquiry reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR. Strict action must be implemented against officers who do not register the FIR, the guidelines say. However, in cases where the preliminary inquiry results in closing the complaint, the complainant must be informed in writing about the reasons for this within a week.Q. Riya attended a political rally of the legislator from his constituency, Reyan. In the rally, Reyan gave a rousing speech targeting a certain religious minority in the constituency. Riya registered a complaint with the local police station, alleging that Reyan gave an inflammatory speech at the rally. However, when the police questioned Riya further, they came to the conclusion that the speech was not inflammatory and did not proceed with the investigation. Can the police be said to have carried out the Lalita Kumari guidelines?

View answer

Justice S. Muralidhar – who until February 25, 2020 was at the Delhi High Court before being transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court – on February 24, 2020 reminded the police that it must act in line with the Lalita Kumari guidelines. The court was hearing a case about registering FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Kapil Mishra, and others who made alleged hate speeches that may have incited violence in the national capital.A by-product of the decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP & Others (2013), the Supreme Court established the Lalita Kumari guidelines which are a mandatory set of directions to be followed by the police when someone seeks to register a complaint. The guidelines lay down that the registration of an FIR (First Information Report) is binding under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, with no requirement for a preliminary investigation.A cognizable offence is one where the police are authorised to start an investigation or make an arrest without court authorisation. Inflammatory speech – covered by Section 153 and Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – is a cognizable offence.Even if the police felt that the complaints against Mishra and other BJP leaders did not reveal a cognizable offence, the guidelines oblige them to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the offence is cognizable or not. The scope of such an inquiry is not to authenticate the facts of the complaint, but only to confirm whether the offence alleged is cognizable. The preliminary inquiry has to be concluded within a week.If the inquiry reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR. Strict action must be implemented against officers who do not register the FIR, the guidelines say. However, in cases where the preliminary inquiry results in closing the complaint, the complainant must be informed in writing about the reasons for this within a week.Q. Jethalal, a student of Delhi University, plans to stand for the post of the president of the students’ union. Another candidate, Daya complains to the police that in one of the presidential debate speeches, Jethalal called for the destruction of the university library alleging that it is home to western literature, which has adversely affected Indian culture. The police are under no doubt that this is a cognizable offence. What is the first step that needs to be taken in such a case?

View answer

Passage:How can we measure crime? The simplest answer would be the official crime statistics. But in a country such as India, dependence on these figures is misleading as police have a regrettable tendency to downgrade crimes or discourage complainant to leave police stations without filing a complaint. Underreporting and non-reporting of criminal cases, which have been a huge problem in all Indian states, totally distort the crime scenario. Despite being aware that allowing mandatory or free registration of cases would certainly inflate crime statistics, Rajasthan became the first Indian state almost a year ago, when the Chief Minister, Ashok Gahlot, demonstrated remarkable political courage by removing the obstacles in mandatory registration of cases. By all accounts, it has been a bold initiative signaling seminal contribution to police reforms in the country.The reports of various police commissions and available literature on police reforms clearly indicate that non-reporting or non-registration of cases is a widespread and serious problem across India. Being the first point of contact with the criminal justice delivery system, a police station, headed by a Station House Officer (SHO), is the most important unit of police functioning. It isengaged with multiple functions such as the registration of crimes through the First Information Report (FIR) and their investigations, handling of various law and order situations, patrolling, and ensuring safety and security in its jurisdiction. However, what gives the power and visibility to a police station and its SHO is the registration or rather the non-registration of cases.Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), registration of an FIR is mandatory if the complaint discloses that a cognizable offence has been committed. Although, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to ensure the nature of an offence, however the scope of such an inquiry is not to confirm the authenticity or otherwise of the complaint but only to ascertain whether it was cognizable complaint of a crime. In theory, the SHO of a police station cannot avoid registration of the FIR and, action has to be taken against those SHOs who do not immediately register the FIR for a cognizable offence. But it is rarely followed in practice.Police stations across the country are notorious for not registering cases as police personnel are aware that their performance is judged on the basis of this information, and they have developed various informal mechanisms to circumvent this legal imposition. One cannot deny that police professionals are overworked and unappreciated. Since registration of cases increases the burden as well as the crime statistics of a police station, an SHO has a vested interest in discouraging non-registration of cases in his jurisdiction.Police legitimacy and public safety are closely related to each other. If the police department wants to develop trust and project better image in the public, it cannot afford to resist change. And greater transparency and accountability in the police functioning are political attributes of good governance. However, systemic change also carries huge political risk if not managed without adequate preparations. Gahlot is aware of this risk as he has remarked that free registration of cases would result in sudden increase in number of FIRs. Notwithstanding the spurt in crime rates,as informed by the expanding wave of FIRs registered in the state during the last one year, the practice of mandatory registration of cases must be continued. The primary motive behind mandatory registration of FIR is to ensure quick response to all crimes and attempts to collect evidence, two key elements of a credible investigation and trial. Although the intention is laudable, the implementation would need to be watched carefully.Q.The author has used the term "free registration" to mean

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Justice S. Muralidhar – who until February 25, 2020 was at the Delhi High Court before being transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court – on February 24, 2020 reminded the police that it must act in line with the Lalita Kumari guidelines. The court was hearing a case about registering FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Kapil Mishra, and others who made alleged hate speeches that may have incited violence in the national capital.A by-product of the decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP & Others (2013), the Supreme Court established the Lalita Kumari guidelines which are a mandatory set of directions to be followed by the police when someone seeks to register a complaint. The guidelines lay down that the registration of an FIR (First Information Report) is binding under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, with no requirement for a preliminary investigation.A cognizable offence is one where the police are authorised to start an investigation or make an arrest without court authorisation. Inflammatory speech – covered by Section 153 and Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – is a cognizable offence.Even if the police felt that the complaints against Mishra and other BJP leaders did not reveal a cognizable offence, the guidelines oblige them to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the offence is cognizable or not. The scope of such an inquiry is not to authenticate the facts of the complaint, but only to confirm whether the offence alleged is cognizable. The preliminary inquiry has to be concluded within a week.If the inquiry reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR. Strict action must be implemented against officers who do not register the FIR, the guidelines say. However, in cases where the preliminary inquiry results in closing the complaint, the complainant must be informed in writing about the reasons for this within a week.Q. Consider that in the factual scenario presented in the earlier question, the police conducts a preliminary inquiry, and comes to a finding (within a week) that the speech by Reyan was inflammatory. What should be the next step by the police?a)Conduct a further inquiry in order to determine the true nature of the offence, without reasonable doubt.b)Arrest Reyan, as the nature of the offence has already been established.c)Wait for the court to pass orders that Reyan can be arrested.d)Wait for Riya to register an FIR.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Justice S. Muralidhar – who until February 25, 2020 was at the Delhi High Court before being transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court – on February 24, 2020 reminded the police that it must act in line with the Lalita Kumari guidelines. The court was hearing a case about registering FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Kapil Mishra, and others who made alleged hate speeches that may have incited violence in the national capital.A by-product of the decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP & Others (2013), the Supreme Court established the Lalita Kumari guidelines which are a mandatory set of directions to be followed by the police when someone seeks to register a complaint. The guidelines lay down that the registration of an FIR (First Information Report) is binding under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, with no requirement for a preliminary investigation.A cognizable offence is one where the police are authorised to start an investigation or make an arrest without court authorisation. Inflammatory speech – covered by Section 153 and Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – is a cognizable offence.Even if the police felt that the complaints against Mishra and other BJP leaders did not reveal a cognizable offence, the guidelines oblige them to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the offence is cognizable or not. The scope of such an inquiry is not to authenticate the facts of the complaint, but only to confirm whether the offence alleged is cognizable. The preliminary inquiry has to be concluded within a week.If the inquiry reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR. Strict action must be implemented against officers who do not register the FIR, the guidelines say. However, in cases where the preliminary inquiry results in closing the complaint, the complainant must be informed in writing about the reasons for this within a week.Q. Consider that in the factual scenario presented in the earlier question, the police conducts a preliminary inquiry, and comes to a finding (within a week) that the speech by Reyan was inflammatory. What should be the next step by the police?a)Conduct a further inquiry in order to determine the true nature of the offence, without reasonable doubt.b)Arrest Reyan, as the nature of the offence has already been established.c)Wait for the court to pass orders that Reyan can be arrested.d)Wait for Riya to register an FIR.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Justice S. Muralidhar – who until February 25, 2020 was at the Delhi High Court before being transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court – on February 24, 2020 reminded the police that it must act in line with the Lalita Kumari guidelines. The court was hearing a case about registering FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Kapil Mishra, and others who made alleged hate speeches that may have incited violence in the national capital.A by-product of the decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP & Others (2013), the Supreme Court established the Lalita Kumari guidelines which are a mandatory set of directions to be followed by the police when someone seeks to register a complaint. The guidelines lay down that the registration of an FIR (First Information Report) is binding under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, with no requirement for a preliminary investigation.A cognizable offence is one where the police are authorised to start an investigation or make an arrest without court authorisation. Inflammatory speech – covered by Section 153 and Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – is a cognizable offence.Even if the police felt that the complaints against Mishra and other BJP leaders did not reveal a cognizable offence, the guidelines oblige them to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the offence is cognizable or not. The scope of such an inquiry is not to authenticate the facts of the complaint, but only to confirm whether the offence alleged is cognizable. The preliminary inquiry has to be concluded within a week.If the inquiry reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR. Strict action must be implemented against officers who do not register the FIR, the guidelines say. However, in cases where the preliminary inquiry results in closing the complaint, the complainant must be informed in writing about the reasons for this within a week.Q. Consider that in the factual scenario presented in the earlier question, the police conducts a preliminary inquiry, and comes to a finding (within a week) that the speech by Reyan was inflammatory. What should be the next step by the police?a)Conduct a further inquiry in order to determine the true nature of the offence, without reasonable doubt.b)Arrest Reyan, as the nature of the offence has already been established.c)Wait for the court to pass orders that Reyan can be arrested.d)Wait for Riya to register an FIR.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Justice S. Muralidhar – who until February 25, 2020 was at the Delhi High Court before being transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court – on February 24, 2020 reminded the police that it must act in line with the Lalita Kumari guidelines. The court was hearing a case about registering FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Kapil Mishra, and others who made alleged hate speeches that may have incited violence in the national capital.A by-product of the decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP & Others (2013), the Supreme Court established the Lalita Kumari guidelines which are a mandatory set of directions to be followed by the police when someone seeks to register a complaint. The guidelines lay down that the registration of an FIR (First Information Report) is binding under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, with no requirement for a preliminary investigation.A cognizable offence is one where the police are authorised to start an investigation or make an arrest without court authorisation. Inflammatory speech – covered by Section 153 and Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – is a cognizable offence.Even if the police felt that the complaints against Mishra and other BJP leaders did not reveal a cognizable offence, the guidelines oblige them to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the offence is cognizable or not. The scope of such an inquiry is not to authenticate the facts of the complaint, but only to confirm whether the offence alleged is cognizable. The preliminary inquiry has to be concluded within a week.If the inquiry reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR. Strict action must be implemented against officers who do not register the FIR, the guidelines say. However, in cases where the preliminary inquiry results in closing the complaint, the complainant must be informed in writing about the reasons for this within a week.Q. Consider that in the factual scenario presented in the earlier question, the police conducts a preliminary inquiry, and comes to a finding (within a week) that the speech by Reyan was inflammatory. What should be the next step by the police?a)Conduct a further inquiry in order to determine the true nature of the offence, without reasonable doubt.b)Arrest Reyan, as the nature of the offence has already been established.c)Wait for the court to pass orders that Reyan can be arrested.d)Wait for Riya to register an FIR.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Justice S. Muralidhar – who until February 25, 2020 was at the Delhi High Court before being transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court – on February 24, 2020 reminded the police that it must act in line with the Lalita Kumari guidelines. The court was hearing a case about registering FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Kapil Mishra, and others who made alleged hate speeches that may have incited violence in the national capital.A by-product of the decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP & Others (2013), the Supreme Court established the Lalita Kumari guidelines which are a mandatory set of directions to be followed by the police when someone seeks to register a complaint. The guidelines lay down that the registration of an FIR (First Information Report) is binding under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, with no requirement for a preliminary investigation.A cognizable offence is one where the police are authorised to start an investigation or make an arrest without court authorisation. Inflammatory speech – covered by Section 153 and Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – is a cognizable offence.Even if the police felt that the complaints against Mishra and other BJP leaders did not reveal a cognizable offence, the guidelines oblige them to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the offence is cognizable or not. The scope of such an inquiry is not to authenticate the facts of the complaint, but only to confirm whether the offence alleged is cognizable. The preliminary inquiry has to be concluded within a week.If the inquiry reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR. Strict action must be implemented against officers who do not register the FIR, the guidelines say. However, in cases where the preliminary inquiry results in closing the complaint, the complainant must be informed in writing about the reasons for this within a week.Q. Consider that in the factual scenario presented in the earlier question, the police conducts a preliminary inquiry, and comes to a finding (within a week) that the speech by Reyan was inflammatory. What should be the next step by the police?a)Conduct a further inquiry in order to determine the true nature of the offence, without reasonable doubt.b)Arrest Reyan, as the nature of the offence has already been established.c)Wait for the court to pass orders that Reyan can be arrested.d)Wait for Riya to register an FIR.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Justice S. Muralidhar – who until February 25, 2020 was at the Delhi High Court before being transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court – on February 24, 2020 reminded the police that it must act in line with the Lalita Kumari guidelines. The court was hearing a case about registering FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Kapil Mishra, and others who made alleged hate speeches that may have incited violence in the national capital.A by-product of the decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP & Others (2013), the Supreme Court established the Lalita Kumari guidelines which are a mandatory set of directions to be followed by the police when someone seeks to register a complaint. The guidelines lay down that the registration of an FIR (First Information Report) is binding under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, with no requirement for a preliminary investigation.A cognizable offence is one where the police are authorised to start an investigation or make an arrest without court authorisation. Inflammatory speech – covered by Section 153 and Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – is a cognizable offence.Even if the police felt that the complaints against Mishra and other BJP leaders did not reveal a cognizable offence, the guidelines oblige them to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the offence is cognizable or not. The scope of such an inquiry is not to authenticate the facts of the complaint, but only to confirm whether the offence alleged is cognizable. The preliminary inquiry has to be concluded within a week.If the inquiry reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR. Strict action must be implemented against officers who do not register the FIR, the guidelines say. However, in cases where the preliminary inquiry results in closing the complaint, the complainant must be informed in writing about the reasons for this within a week.Q. Consider that in the factual scenario presented in the earlier question, the police conducts a preliminary inquiry, and comes to a finding (within a week) that the speech by Reyan was inflammatory. What should be the next step by the police?a)Conduct a further inquiry in order to determine the true nature of the offence, without reasonable doubt.b)Arrest Reyan, as the nature of the offence has already been established.c)Wait for the court to pass orders that Reyan can be arrested.d)Wait for Riya to register an FIR.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Justice S. Muralidhar – who until February 25, 2020 was at the Delhi High Court before being transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court – on February 24, 2020 reminded the police that it must act in line with the Lalita Kumari guidelines. The court was hearing a case about registering FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Kapil Mishra, and others who made alleged hate speeches that may have incited violence in the national capital.A by-product of the decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP & Others (2013), the Supreme Court established the Lalita Kumari guidelines which are a mandatory set of directions to be followed by the police when someone seeks to register a complaint. The guidelines lay down that the registration of an FIR (First Information Report) is binding under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, with no requirement for a preliminary investigation.A cognizable offence is one where the police are authorised to start an investigation or make an arrest without court authorisation. Inflammatory speech – covered by Section 153 and Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – is a cognizable offence.Even if the police felt that the complaints against Mishra and other BJP leaders did not reveal a cognizable offence, the guidelines oblige them to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the offence is cognizable or not. The scope of such an inquiry is not to authenticate the facts of the complaint, but only to confirm whether the offence alleged is cognizable. The preliminary inquiry has to be concluded within a week.If the inquiry reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR. Strict action must be implemented against officers who do not register the FIR, the guidelines say. However, in cases where the preliminary inquiry results in closing the complaint, the complainant must be informed in writing about the reasons for this within a week.Q. Consider that in the factual scenario presented in the earlier question, the police conducts a preliminary inquiry, and comes to a finding (within a week) that the speech by Reyan was inflammatory. What should be the next step by the police?a)Conduct a further inquiry in order to determine the true nature of the offence, without reasonable doubt.b)Arrest Reyan, as the nature of the offence has already been established.c)Wait for the court to pass orders that Reyan can be arrested.d)Wait for Riya to register an FIR.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Justice S. Muralidhar – who until February 25, 2020 was at the Delhi High Court before being transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court – on February 24, 2020 reminded the police that it must act in line with the Lalita Kumari guidelines. The court was hearing a case about registering FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Kapil Mishra, and others who made alleged hate speeches that may have incited violence in the national capital.A by-product of the decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP & Others (2013), the Supreme Court established the Lalita Kumari guidelines which are a mandatory set of directions to be followed by the police when someone seeks to register a complaint. The guidelines lay down that the registration of an FIR (First Information Report) is binding under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, with no requirement for a preliminary investigation.A cognizable offence is one where the police are authorised to start an investigation or make an arrest without court authorisation. Inflammatory speech – covered by Section 153 and Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – is a cognizable offence.Even if the police felt that the complaints against Mishra and other BJP leaders did not reveal a cognizable offence, the guidelines oblige them to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the offence is cognizable or not. The scope of such an inquiry is not to authenticate the facts of the complaint, but only to confirm whether the offence alleged is cognizable. The preliminary inquiry has to be concluded within a week.If the inquiry reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR. Strict action must be implemented against officers who do not register the FIR, the guidelines say. However, in cases where the preliminary inquiry results in closing the complaint, the complainant must be informed in writing about the reasons for this within a week.Q. Consider that in the factual scenario presented in the earlier question, the police conducts a preliminary inquiry, and comes to a finding (within a week) that the speech by Reyan was inflammatory. What should be the next step by the police?a)Conduct a further inquiry in order to determine the true nature of the offence, without reasonable doubt.b)Arrest Reyan, as the nature of the offence has already been established.c)Wait for the court to pass orders that Reyan can be arrested.d)Wait for Riya to register an FIR.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Justice S. Muralidhar – who until February 25, 2020 was at the Delhi High Court before being transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court – on February 24, 2020 reminded the police that it must act in line with the Lalita Kumari guidelines. The court was hearing a case about registering FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Kapil Mishra, and others who made alleged hate speeches that may have incited violence in the national capital.A by-product of the decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP & Others (2013), the Supreme Court established the Lalita Kumari guidelines which are a mandatory set of directions to be followed by the police when someone seeks to register a complaint. The guidelines lay down that the registration of an FIR (First Information Report) is binding under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, with no requirement for a preliminary investigation.A cognizable offence is one where the police are authorised to start an investigation or make an arrest without court authorisation. Inflammatory speech – covered by Section 153 and Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – is a cognizable offence.Even if the police felt that the complaints against Mishra and other BJP leaders did not reveal a cognizable offence, the guidelines oblige them to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the offence is cognizable or not. The scope of such an inquiry is not to authenticate the facts of the complaint, but only to confirm whether the offence alleged is cognizable. The preliminary inquiry has to be concluded within a week.If the inquiry reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR. Strict action must be implemented against officers who do not register the FIR, the guidelines say. However, in cases where the preliminary inquiry results in closing the complaint, the complainant must be informed in writing about the reasons for this within a week.Q. Consider that in the factual scenario presented in the earlier question, the police conducts a preliminary inquiry, and comes to a finding (within a week) that the speech by Reyan was inflammatory. What should be the next step by the police?a)Conduct a further inquiry in order to determine the true nature of the offence, without reasonable doubt.b)Arrest Reyan, as the nature of the offence has already been established.c)Wait for the court to pass orders that Reyan can be arrested.d)Wait for Riya to register an FIR.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Justice S. Muralidhar – who until February 25, 2020 was at the Delhi High Court before being transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court – on February 24, 2020 reminded the police that it must act in line with the Lalita Kumari guidelines. The court was hearing a case about registering FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Kapil Mishra, and others who made alleged hate speeches that may have incited violence in the national capital.A by-product of the decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP & Others (2013), the Supreme Court established the Lalita Kumari guidelines which are a mandatory set of directions to be followed by the police when someone seeks to register a complaint. The guidelines lay down that the registration of an FIR (First Information Report) is binding under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, with no requirement for a preliminary investigation.A cognizable offence is one where the police are authorised to start an investigation or make an arrest without court authorisation. Inflammatory speech – covered by Section 153 and Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – is a cognizable offence.Even if the police felt that the complaints against Mishra and other BJP leaders did not reveal a cognizable offence, the guidelines oblige them to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the offence is cognizable or not. The scope of such an inquiry is not to authenticate the facts of the complaint, but only to confirm whether the offence alleged is cognizable. The preliminary inquiry has to be concluded within a week.If the inquiry reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR. Strict action must be implemented against officers who do not register the FIR, the guidelines say. However, in cases where the preliminary inquiry results in closing the complaint, the complainant must be informed in writing about the reasons for this within a week.Q. Consider that in the factual scenario presented in the earlier question, the police conducts a preliminary inquiry, and comes to a finding (within a week) that the speech by Reyan was inflammatory. What should be the next step by the police?a)Conduct a further inquiry in order to determine the true nature of the offence, without reasonable doubt.b)Arrest Reyan, as the nature of the offence has already been established.c)Wait for the court to pass orders that Reyan can be arrested.d)Wait for Riya to register an FIR.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam