Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

1. Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which of the following statements best reflects the distinction made by the Supreme Court in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat between Section 173 BNSS and Section 154 CrPC regarding preliminary inquiries?A. Section 173(3) BNSS permits a preliminary inquiry only when the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, mirroring the Lalita Kumari guidelines under CrPC. B. Section 173(1) BNSS mandates FIR registration for all cognizable offences, while Section 173(3) allows a preliminary inquiry even if the information discloses a cognizable offence, provided the offence is punishable by 3–7 years and prior permission is obtained. C. Section 173 BNSS abolishes preliminary inquiries entirely, requiring immediate FIR registration for any cognizable offence, irrespective of severity. D. A preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS is compulsory for offences punishable by 7+ years, while offences under 3 years require direct FIR registration.Correct Answer: BExplanation: The Supreme Court held that Section 173(1) BNSS (like Section 154 CrPC) mandates FIR registration if the information discloses a cognizable offence. However, Section 173(3) BNSS introduces a new exception: for offences punishable by 3–7 years, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted even if the information reveals a cognizable offence, provided prior approval from a DSP-rank officer is obtained (unlike CrPC, where Lalita Kumari allowed inquiries only where the information did not disclose a cognizable offence).Difference Between FIR Registration Provisions Under S. 154 CrPC & S. 173 BNSS: Supreme Court Explains2. Consider the following statements regarding the differences between Section 156(3) CrPC and Section 175(3) BNSS:1. Under Section 175(3) BNSS, the Magistrate is mandatorily required to hear the concerned police officer before ordering an FIR registration, unlike under Section 156(3) CrPC. 2. Section 175(3) BNSS introduces a new requirement where the complainant must first approach the Superintendent of Police with an affidavit before moving the Magistrate. 3. The Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC could act mechanically, but Section 175(3) BNSS ensures a reasoned judicial order by mandating an inquiry. 4. Section 175(3) BNSS completely bars the Magistrate from ordering an FIR if the police refuse registration, unlike Section 156(3) CrPC.Which of the above statements are correct?A) 1, 2 and 3 only B) 2 and 4 only C) 1 and 3 only D) 1, 2, 3 and 4Correct Answer: ACause Title: OM PRAKASH AMBADKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 139Explanation: The Court highlighted the changes introduced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in Section 175 (corresponding to Section 156 of the Cr.P.C.), noting that Section 174(4) of BNSS is a new addition providing additional safeguards for public servants before an FIR can be registered against them. These safeguards include requiring a report from their superior officer detailing the facts and circumstances of the incident and considering the accused public servant's account of the situation that led to the alleged incident.The Court highlighted three new safeguards in BNSS Section 175(3) (absent in Cr.P.C. 156(3)): 1) mandatory application to the Superintendent of Police (with copy and affidavit); 2) Magistrate's power of inquiry; and 3) consideration of the police's refusal to register the FIR. These codify existing safeguards against misuse of magisterial powers.S.156(3) CrPC v S.175(3) BNSS | BNSS Mandates Magistrate To Hear Police Officer On Refusal To Register FIR, Ensures Reasoned Order : Supreme Court3. In a civil suit, Defendant 'X' died during the pendency of proceedings. The Trial Court, after conducting an inquiry under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC, impleaded 'Y' (X's son) as the legal heir. 'Y' did not object to his impleadment at that stage. Two years later, 'Y' filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, seeking deletion of his name, arguing that under Muslim personal law, he was not the rightful legal heir of 'X' since his father had predeceased his mother. Choose the most appropriate option.A) Order I Rule 10 CPC allows deletion of a party at any stage, so 'Y' can challenge his impleadment even belatedly. B) Since 'Y' failed to object during Order XXII Rule 4 inquiry, the issue is barred by res judicata, and his later application under Order I Rule 10 is impermissible. C) The Trial Court must re-examine 'Y's claim under Muslim law, as Order I Rule 10 overrides Order XXII Rule 4. D) 'Y' should have filed a revision petition before the High Court instead of invoking Order I Rule 10 CPC.Correct Answer: BCause Title: SULTHAN SAID IBRAHIM VERSUS PRAKASAN & ORS.Explanation: The Supreme Court held that once a legal heir is impleaded after an Order XXII Rule 4 inquiry without objections, a subsequent challenge under Order I Rule 10 CPC is barred by res judicata.Legal Heir...

Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Yash Mittal

Tags