The Allahabad High Court has observed that if the Magistrate is satisfied with the police report and sees no ground to summon the un-chargesheeted individuals, he can proceed without necessarily hearing the informant.

The Court was considering an application seeking quashing of a case filed under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act.

The single bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed, "From the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, principles of natural justice as well as observations made in Bhagwat Singh (supra), even though the Magistrate is not bound to give notice of the hearing fixed for consideration of the report to the injured person or to any relative of the deceased, he may, in the exercise of his discretion, if he so thinks fit, give such notice to the injured person or to any particular relative or relatives of the deceased, but not giving of such notice will not have any invalidating effect on the order which may be made by the Magistrate on a consideration of the report."

The Applicant was represented by Advocate Lalji Yadav while the Respondent was represented by Government Advocate Sanjay Kr. Srivastava.

Facts of the Case

An FIR was lodged by the Applicant against six persons with the allegations of being mentally and physically harassed for additional dowry demand. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted only against one accused whereas final report was submitted in favour of the others. The accused was summoned and the order is under challenge in the present application.

Counsel for the Applicant submitted that as per Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Investigating Officer must communicate about the action taken by him to persons by whom the information relating to commission of offence was given first. The applicant-informant lodged the FIR but the Investigating Officer neither informed her about the progress of investigation nor supplied a copy of the case diary (police report) before its submission to the Court. Thus, the submission of charge sheet before the Court concerned without informing and communicating about the Police report to the applicant was against the mandate of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., hence, improper, unjust and illegal.

It was further submitted that a final report was submitted in favour of other five persons who were named in the FIR exonerating them from the nemesis of law (legal proceedings) as the applicant who had lodged the FIR was affected by the same, hence, it was mandatory for the Magistrate to issue notice, give an opportunity to the informant and only after hearing the informant, order taking cognizance should have been passed, thus the order taking cognizance against the accused and not against the others, who were named in the FIR, though they were exonerated is illegal and against the principles of natural justice.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset referred to the relevant sections and observed,".....if the Magistrate decides that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drops the proceedings or takes the view that though there is sufficient ground for proceeding against others mentioned in the First Information Report, the informant would certainly be prejudiced because the First Information Report lodged by him would have failed of its purpose; wholly or in part. Moreover, when the interest of the informant in prompt and effective action being taken on the First Information Report lodged by him is clearly recognised by the provisions contained in Section 154(2) Cr.P.C, of Section 157(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 173(2)(ii) Cr.P.C, it must be presumed that the informant would equally be interested in seeing that the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and issues process, because that would be culmination of the First Information Report lodged by him."

It mentioned Bhagwat Singh (supra) wherein it was held that in a case when a Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under Section 173(2)(i) Cr.P.C. decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceedings or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the First Information Report, the Magistrate must give a notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity of being heard at the time of consideration of the report, and the difficulty of serving notice on the informant cannot possibly provide any justification for depriving the informant of the opportunity of being heard at the time when the report is considered by the Magistrate.

"In the criminal cases, when charge sheet is filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate reviews it to decide whether to take cognizance of the offence. If the Police does not include certain persons in charge sheet, who are shown as an accused in the FIR, and the Magistrate disagrees with this, the Magistrate can still summon those persons if the evidence suggests their involvement. However whether the Magistrate is bound to summon the informant or complainant before deciding not to summon the un-chargesheeted persons depends upon the situation and legal proceedings," the Court observed.

After further referring to catena of decisions, the Court stressed that it is established that while the Magistrate has discretion in accepting or rejecting the police report, the informant or complainant must generally be given an opportunity to be heard, especially if the Magistrate is inclined to accept a report that exonerates some individuals.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Suman Prajapati vs. State of U.P. and Another (2025:AHC:33440)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Lalji Yadav, Advocate Yashpal Yadav

Respondent- Government Advocate Sanjay Kr. Srivastava.

Click here to read/ download Order











Allahabad High CourtJustice Manju Rani Chauhan

Sheetal Joon