| Headnote |
Issue for Consideration Nature of chargesheets filed in some jurisdictions by the State/ Police, without stating sufficient details of the facts constituting the offense or putting the relevant evidence on record; significance of chargesheets for taking cognizance, summoning of the accused etc. by the Magistrate; chargesheets and criminal proceedings against the appellants, if to be quashed.Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.173 – Report of police officer on completion of investigation – Nature and standard of evidence in chargesheet – Chargesheet when complete:Held: The requirement of “further evidence” or a “supplementary chargesheet” as referred to u/s.173(8) is to make additions to a complete chargesheet and not to make up or reparate for a chargesheet which does not fulfil requirements of s.173(2) – The chargesheet is complete when it refers to material and evidence sufficient to take cognizance and for the trial – The nature and standard of evidence to be elucidated in a chargesheet should prima facie show that an offence is established if the material and evidence is proven – The chargesheet is complete where a case is not exclusively dependent on further evidence and the trial can proceed on the basis of evidence and material placed on record with the chargesheet – This standard is not overly technical or fool-proof, but a pragmatic balance to protect the innocent from harassment due to delay as well as prolonged incarceration, and yet not curtail the right of the prosecution to forward further evidence in support of the charges – However, chargesheet need not elaborately evaluate the evidence, as the process of evaluation is a matter of trial – This does not mean that the chargesheet should not disclose or refer to the facts as to meet the requirements of s.173(2), and the mandate of the State rules – It is the police report which would enable the Magistrate to decide a course of action from the options available to him – The details of the offence and investigation are not supposed to be a comprehensive thesis of the prosecution case, but at the same time, must reflect a thorough investigation into the alleged offence – It is on the basis of this record that the court can take effective cognisance of the offence and proceed to issue process in terms of s.190(1)(b) and s.204, CrPC – Investigating officer must make clear and complete entries of all columns in the chargesheet so that the court can clearly understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on the file – Statements u/s.161 of the Code and related documents have to be enclosed with the list of witnesses – Role played by the accused in the crime should be separately and clearly mentioned in the chargesheet, for each of the accused persons – Chargesheet and summoning order quashed in Cr.A. 2357 of 2024, appellants discharged – Chargesheet in SLP (Crl.) No.9482/2021 bereft of details and particulars, summoning order quashed. [Paras 13, 23, 24, 31, 40, 45] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.173(2), 190, 204, 251 – Chargesheet integral to the process of taking cognisance, summoning of the accused, the issue of notice, framing of charge:Held: There is an inherent connect between the chargesheet submitted under Section 173(2), cognisance which is taken u/s.190, issue of process and summoning of the accused u/s.204, and thereupon issue of notice u/s.251, or the charge in terms of Chapter XVII of the Code – The details set out in the chargesheet have a substantial impact on the efficacy of procedure at the subsequent stages – The chargesheet is integral to the process of taking cognisance, the issue of notice and framing of charge, being the only investigative document and evidence available to the court till that stage – Substantiated reasons and grounds for an offence being made in the chargesheet are a key resource for a Magistrate to evaluate whether there are sufficient grounds for taking cognisance, initiating proceedings, and then issuing notice, framing charges etc. – These provisions, however, have to be read along with the power of the police to investigate under sub-section (8) to s.173 even when they have submitted a report u/sub-section (2) to s.173. [Para 20] Deprecation – Of filing of chargesheets without stating sufficient details of the facts constituting the offense or putting the relevant evidence on record: Held: In some states, the chargesheets merely carry a reproduction of the details mentioned by the complainant in the FIR, and then proceed to state whether an offence is made out, or not made out, without any elucidation on the evidence and material relied upon – In the format prescribed for the State of Uttar Pradesh, column 16 requires the investigating officer to state brief facts of the case – State of Uttar Pradesh issued circular stating that the investigation provisions contained in the Code and the police regulations with reference to s.173, CrPC were not consistently complied with and followed by the investigating officers and the supervising officers – The need to provide lead details of the offence in the chargesheet is mandatory as it is in accord with paragraph 122 of the police regulations – Similar directions were issued following the direction of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad that brief narration of the material collected during investigation, which forms the opinion of the investigating officer, should be mentioned in the chargesheet. [Paras 2, 30] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.190, 204 – Cognizance of offences by Magistrates – Issue of process – “cognisance”:Held: It indicates the juncture at which the court or Magistrate takes judicial notice of the offence with a view to initiate proceedings in respect of such an offence – This is different from initiation of proceedings – Rather, it is a condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings by a Magistrate or judge – At this stage, the Magistrate has to keep in mind the averments in the complaint or the police report, and has to evaluate whether there is sufficient ground for initiation of proceedings – This is not the same as the consideration of sufficient grounds for conviction, as whether evidence is sufficient for supporting the conviction or not, can be determined only at the stage of trial, and not at the stage of cognisance – s.204 does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issue of summons and this is not a prerequisite for deciding the validity of the summons – Nevertheless, the requirement of the Code is that the summons is issued when it appears to the Magistrate that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused – Magistrate in terms of s.204 is required to exercise his judicial discretion with a degree of caution, even when he is not required to record reasons, on whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding. [Paras 16, 17] Criminal Law – Police investigation – Object and purpose – Discussed. [Para 26]Non-bailable warrants – Charge sheet filed u/ss.323, 504, 506, 120B, 308, 325, Penal Code, 1860 – Bailable warrants issued – Application for exemption from personal appearance was filed which was rejected – Non-bailable warrants issued – High Court dismissed the petition u/s.482, CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings:Held: Non-bailable warrants cannot be issued in a routine manner and the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed unless necessitated by the larger interest of public and the State – While there are no comprehensive set of guidelines for the issuance of non-bailable warrants, this Court has observed on several occasions that non-bailable warrants should not be issued, unless the accused is charged with a heinous crime, and is likely to evade the process of law or tamper/destroy evidence – Non-bailable warrants issued in appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9482/2021 are quashed being unsustainable. [Paras 46] Penal Code, 1860 – ss.406, 420, 503 – Offences under, when not made out – Discussed. [Paras 36, 37, 39] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.205 – Application for exemption from personal appearance was rejected by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, recording that as bail was not obtained till then and there is no provision for granting exemption from personal appearance prior to obtaining bail – Correctness: Held: Not correct, as the power to grant exemption from personal appearance under the Code should not be read in a restrictive manner as applicable only after the accused has been granted bail – The power to grant exemption from personal appearance should be exercised liberally, when facts and circumstances require such exemption – s.205 states that the Magistrate, exercising his discretion, may dispense with the personal attendance of the accused while issuing summons, and allow them to appear through their pleader – While provisions of the Code are considered to be exhaustive, cases arise where the Code is silent and the court has to make such order as the ends of justice require – In such cases, the criminal court must act on the principle, that every procedure which is just and fair, is understood as permissible, till it is shown to be expressly or impliedly prohibited by law. [Para 47] Criminal Law – Civil disputes not involving criminal offence – Duty of a Magistrate: Held: A Magistrate needs to be cautious in examining whether the facts of the case disclose a civil or a criminal wrong – Attempts at initiating vexatious criminal proceedings should be thwarted early on, as a summoning order, or even a direction to register an FIR, has grave consequences for setting the criminal proceedings in motion – Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims which do not involve any criminal offence, by way of applying pressure through criminal prosecution, should be deprecated and discouraged. [Para 44] |
