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 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?a)No, as it did not carry out a proper investigation into the offences alleged in the complaint.b)No, as it did not wait for court authorization to carry out the inquiry.c)No, as it did not inform Daya (in writing) about the reasons for closing the complaint.d)No, as it did not finish the preliminary inquiry on time.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 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?a)No, as it did not carry out a proper investigation into the offences alleged in the complaint.b)No, as it did not wait for court authorization to carry out the inquiry.c)No, as it did not inform Daya (in writing) about the reasons for closing the complaint.d)No, as it did not finish the preliminary inquiry on time.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 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?a)No, as it did not carry out a proper investigation into the offences alleged in the complaint.b)No, as it did not wait for court authorization to carry out the inquiry.c)No, as it did not inform Daya (in writing) about the reasons for closing the complaint.d)No, as it did not finish the preliminary inquiry on time.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 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?a)No, as it did not carry out a proper investigation into the offences alleged in the complaint.b)No, as it did not wait for court authorization to carry out the inquiry.c)No, as it did not inform Daya (in writing) about the reasons for closing the complaint.d)No, as it did not finish the preliminary inquiry on time.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 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?a)No, as it did not carry out a proper investigation into the offences alleged in the complaint.b)No, as it did not wait for court authorization to carry out the inquiry.c)No, as it did not inform Daya (in writing) about the reasons for closing the complaint.d)No, as it did not finish the preliminary inquiry on time.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 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?a)No, as it did not carry out a proper investigation into the offences alleged in the complaint.b)No, as it did not wait for court authorization to carry out the inquiry.c)No, as it did not inform Daya (in writing) about the reasons for closing the complaint.d)No, as it did not finish the preliminary inquiry on time.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 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?a)No, as it did not carry out a proper investigation into the offences alleged in the complaint.b)No, as it did not wait for court authorization to carry out the inquiry.c)No, as it did not inform Daya (in writing) about the reasons for closing the complaint.d)No, as it did not finish the preliminary inquiry on time.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 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?a)No, as it did not carry out a proper investigation into the offences alleged in the complaint.b)No, as it did not wait for court authorization to carry out the inquiry.c)No, as it did not inform Daya (in writing) about the reasons for closing the complaint.d)No, as it did not finish the preliminary inquiry on time.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 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?a)No, as it did not carry out a proper investigation into the offences alleged in the complaint.b)No, as it did not wait for court authorization to carry out the inquiry.c)No, as it did not inform Daya (in writing) about the reasons for closing the complaint.d)No, as it did not finish the preliminary inquiry on time.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.