1.00. RULE. Mr.Harshil Dattani, learned advocate waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Ms.Chetna Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.4 – State. 2.00. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, present Criminal Revision Application is taken up for final hearing today.
3.00. Present Criminal Revision Application, under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred by the petitioner herein – original complainant to quash and set aside the impugned order dtd.9/9/2011 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamkhambhaliya, District Jamnagar application below Ex.75 in Sessions Case No.53 of 2009, by which the application submitted by the petitioner herein – original complainant to arraign the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein as accused, in exercise of the powers under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been rejected.
4.00. Facts leading to the present Criminal Revision Application, in nutshell, are as under :-
4.01. That the petitioner - original complainant has lodged the First Information Report against the accused persons inclusive of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein being CR No.I-1 of 2009 before the Salaya Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 365, 36, 392, 506(2), 114, 342 of Indian Penal Code read with section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act. It was alleged in the said complaint that her marriage was solemnized before two years and out of the wedlock she has delivered a child. It is further stated in the First Information Report that before three months the incident occurred and she was forcibly taken by the accused named in the First Information Report and the role of each accused was also stated in the First Information Report. It is required to be noted that in the First Information Report name of 5 persons, inclusive of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, came to be disclosed and even all the accused persons submitted anticipatory bail which was opposed by the investigating officer. After conclusion of the investigation, investigating officer submitted Chargesheet only against one accused person i.e. Jusub Osman Jasraya – original accused No.1 and only the said accused came to be arrested. However, investigating officer neither arrested other accused named in the First Information Report, more particularly respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, nor submitted any report / summary before the learned Magistrate with respect to those accused and only in column No.2 of the Chargesheet filed against the original accused No.1, it was mentioned that other three accused persons, i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, are not arrested as there is no case found against them.
4.02. That thereafter, the trial proceeded further against the accused No.1, who was chargesheeted, being Sessions Case No. 53 of 2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamkhambhaliya and in the said Sessions Case, the petitioner - original complainant submitted application Ex.75 requesting the learned Judge to arraign the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein – original accused Nos.2 to 4 (who are named in the First Information Report) as accused, in exercise of the powers under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by submitting that as such no summary / report has been filed by the concerned investigating officer with respect to those accused persons though they were named in the First Information Report and looking to the averments and allegations in the First Information Report, there is a prima facie case against the said accused persons also.
4.03. That by the impugned order the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamkhambhaliya has rejected the said application Ex.75 by passing a cryptic and nonspeaking order, observing that as on today, there is no material found against the said accused persons and if in future any material is found against them, it will be open for the complainant to make appropriate submissions which can be considered, however, has refused to arraign the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein as accused.
4.04. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned Order dtd.9/9/2011 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamkhambhaliya below application Ex.75 in Sessions Case No.53 of 2009, petitioner - original complainant has preferred the present Criminal Revision Application.
5.00. Mr.Dagli, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner – original complainant has vehemently submitted that in the present case, as such, the investigating officer has not filed any report and/or summary with respect to respondent Nos.1 to 3 – original accused Nos.2 to 4 as required under section 173/169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with clause 232 of the Bombay Police Manual. It is submitted that as such when the First Information Report has been lodged against the accused persons named in the First Information Report for cognizable offences, investigating officer is required to investigate the offences and where the investigating officer, investigating into a cognizable offence, on completion of the investigation, is of the opinion that no case is made out against those accused named in the First Information Report who are not arrested and chargesheeted, the investigating officer is required to submit a final report with respect to those accused persons as per Clause 232 of the Bombay Police Manual either under section 173 or 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for grant of “A”, “B” or “C” Summary and as such the learned Magistrate is not bound to accept the said report / summary and the Magistrate may disagree with the said report/summary and may take its own independent decision, considering the evidence on record and and may disagree with such a report and may direct to take cognizance of the offence. However, if the learned Magistrate is of the opinion and agrees with the Report / Summary requested by the investigating officer, in that case the Magistrate is required to issue notice upon the complainant to give an opportunity to the complainant to oppose such a report by submitting a protest application and thereafter the learned Magistrate may take an appropriate decision either to accept the Summary / Report submitted by the investigating officer or may disagree with the same and proceed further to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the said accused persons or even pass an order for further investigation also. It is submitted that in the present case, though proposed accused Nos.1 to 3 were named in the First Information Report and though there were specific allegations made against those persons in the First Information Report, no opportunity has been given even to the complainant to oppose the dropping of such accused. It is submitted that mere mention in Column No.2 in the chargesheet filed against the other accused that no case is made out against other accused, cannot be said to be a final report against the other persons named in the First Information Report, against whom according to the investigating officer no case is made out and/or no material is found against them. It is, therefore, submitted that when the prosecution / learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted application Ex.75 requesting the learned Judge to arraign the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein as accused in exercise of the powers under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by submitting that the aforesaid learned Judge ought to have either allowed the said application and ought to have arraigned the respondent Nos.1 to 3 as accused as there was sufficient material against them. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present Criminal Revision Application and to quash and set aside the impugned order either by directing that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 be arraigned as accused or directing the investigating officer to submit final report with respect to those persons before the learned Magistrate so that the said report / summary can be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law and on merits and if required after giving an opportunity to the petitioner - original complainant. In support of his above submission, Mr.Dagli, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat Versus Shah Lakhamshi Amarshi, reported in 1966 GLR 130 as well as decision of this Court in the case of Dharmendra Kishorbhai Virani Versus State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No.1430 of 2007 reported in 2007 LawSuit (Gujarat) 2106.
6.00. Present petition is opposed by Mr.A.D. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein – proposed accused named in the First Information Report. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the material on record when it has been found that there is no material on record found against the proposed accused – respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein and when the learned Judge has rejected the application Ex.75 and refused to arraign respondent Nos.1 to 3 as accused, no illegality has been committed by the learned Judge and hence no interference of this Court, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction is required.
6.01. Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner - original complainant that the investigating officer has not submitted any final report with respect to respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein though they were named in the First Information Report as required under section 169/173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereby no opportunity to the complainant is given to submit protest application is concerned, Mr.A.D. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has submitted that as in the Column No.2 in the chargesheet filed against the other accused it has been stated that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not arrested as there is no material and/or evidence found against them and therefore, the same may be treated as final report and/or no separate final report, as contemplated under section 173/169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is required to be submitted by the investigating officer.
6.02. Mr.A.D. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has further submitted that section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers power on police officer to release a person on his executing a bond to appear if and when so required before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, and to try the accused or commit him for trial when the officer on investigation does not find sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate. It is submitted that police report contemplated in the said provision refers to the report on which a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance and such report can be a report as contemplated under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that provisions of section 173 clearly contemplate the forwarding of the report, in the form prescribed by the State Government, to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report. It is further submitted that even in section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reference is to the forwarding of the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report. Thus, Police Report contemplated by Chapter XII has reference to report of the Police Officer on completion of investigation as contemplated under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6.03. Mr.A.D. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has further submitted that section 173(2)(i)(d) contemplates reference to the commission of any offence and if so by whom. It is submitted that similarly section 173(2)(i)(p) of the Code of Criminal Procedure also contemplates reference to the release of a person and this would clearly indicate fulfillment of requirement of section 169. It is further submitted that even section 173(2)(i)(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure also indicate fulfillment of the provisions of section 170. It is submitted that, therefore, thus, there is no separate report to be submitted under section 169 and reference of the police report in section 169. It is submitted that thus, when an accused has been released on bond as mentioned in report under section 173(2)(i)(f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Magistrate has to make order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise, as consider thinks fit. It is submitted that phrase “as he thinks fit” clearly contemplates that a Magistrate may not accept the police report mentioned in detail in the report of Clause (f) of sub- section(2)(i) of section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that thus, provisions of section 173 deals with the submission of the report as “Chargesheet”. However, if, in the opinion of the investigating officer case is made out against the persons involved in the commission of the offence, it is submitted that the said provisions also refer to the report on completion of the investigation as “Final Report” referring to resolution of investigation disclosing no offence having been made out. It is submitted that provisions of section 173 also contemplates forwarding of the police papers of investigation along with the report and the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report can resort to take cognizance of the offence on a police report can resort to any of the steps, viz. accept the report and drop the proceedings after affording opportunity to the informant; or reject the report and take cognizance of the offences as emerging from papers of investigation; or direct further investigation and await report; or examine complainant under section 200 and on completion of inquiry take cognizance of the offence. It is submitted that, therefore, while submitting Chargesheet against other accused persons, mention in Column No.2 that other persons are not arrested as no material is found against them, can be said to be a final report with respect to such accused persons who are not chargesheeted and separate final report / report / summary as contemplated under section 169/173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Bombay Police Manual, is not required with respect to those accused persons.
6.04. Mr.A.D. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein has further submitted that Court, in exercise of the powers exercisable under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if during the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence, finds from the evidence that any person not being an accused, has committed any offence, for which such person could be tried together with accused, Court may proceed against such person for the offence which the accused appears to have committed. It is submitted that in the present case, on consideration of the material on record, the learned Judge has refused to arraign the respondent Nos.1 to 3 as accused reserving a right in favour of the prosecution to review / renew such request in future if evidence is found. It is submitted that as such the learned Judge has also considered the alleged role attributed to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 who are sought to be arraigned as accused and thus documentary evidences in respect to the investigation done by the police at Ex.Nos.62 to 68 have also been taken into consideration and the documents on record do not disclose a prima facie against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 – proposed accused. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present Criminal Revision Application.
6.05. Mr.A.D. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein has heavily relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his above submissions in support of his prayer to dismiss the present Criminal Revision Application:-
(1) (2009) 3 SCC (Criminal) 303. (Chittaranjan Mirdha Versus Dulal Ghosh and another);
(2) (2006) 1 (Criminal) SCC 764 (Kailash Dwivedi Versus State of M.P. and another);
(3) 2011 (3) GLH 180. (Sarojben Ashwinkumar Shah etc. Versus State of Gujarat and another);
(4) AIR 2009 S.C. 2792 (Sarabjit Singh and another Versus State of Punjab and another) and ;
(5) 2007 (8) SCC 770 (Dinesh Dalmia Versus CBI).
By making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to dismiss the present Criminal Revision Application.
7.00. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.
7.01. From the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, a short question which arises for consideration of this Court is, whether with respect to persons named in the FIR as accused persons in cognizable offences, after conclusion of the investigation, if investigating officer is of the opinion that there is no material or case found against the said accused persons named in the FIR and said accused are not to be chargesheeted, whether the investigating officer is bound to submit a final report / report / summary with respect to the said accused persons as contemplated under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the concerned learned Magistrate, who is having jurisdiction to try the case arising out of the said offences, or, mere mention, in Column No.2 of the Chargesheet filed against other accused, to the effect that those accused though named in the FIR, are not arrested as there is no material found against them, is sufficient and/or the same can be said to be a report under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to those accused persons though named in the FIR but not Chargesheeted.
7.02. In the present case, as stated hereinabove, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein – proposed accused were, in fact, named in the FIR lodged by the petitioner – complainant being CR No.I-1 of 2009 registered with Salaya Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 365, 36, 392, 506(2), 114, 342 of Indian Penal Code read with section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act, and it is an admitted position that after conclusion of the investigation, the investigating officer has filed chargesheet only against the original accused No.1 and in Column No.2 of the chargesheet filed against the original accused No.1, the investigating officer has mentioned that other accused persons named in the FIR are not arrested as there is no material found against them. However, it is an admitted position that as such no final report has been submitted by the investigating officer with respect to those persons who are named in the FIR but not chargesheeted, before the concerned Magistrate as required under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mere mention in Column No.2 of the Chargesheet filed against other accused persons that other accused persons are not arrested as no material is found against them, in the opinion of this Court, can not be said to be a final report with respect to those accused persons who are named in the FIR but not chargesheeted, as contemplated under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as sought to be contended by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein.
7.03. Powers of the Police to investigate into the offences and procedure to be adopted by them as provided in Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be considered by the Full Bench of this Court in detail in the case of Shah Lakhamshi Amarshi (SUPRA) and in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 the Full Bench has observed and held as under :-
“3. The provisions relating to the power of the police to investigate into the offences and the procedure to be adopted by them are to be found in Chapter XIV which falls in Part V healed : Information to the police and their powers to investigate. An Officer in charge of a police station may investigate into any cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate [sec.156(1)] but no police officer can investigate a non-cognizable case without an order from a Magistrate specified in sec.155(2). Under sec.156(3) any Magistrate empowered under sec.190 may order the police to investigate into a cognizable case. Sec.157 prescribes the procedure to be followed where from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police
station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under sec.156 to investigate and declares that in such a case the officer must forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and proceed in person, or depute one of his subordinate officers, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender except in the two cases set out in the provisions in which he need not proceed to investigate the case. The Magistrate, on receiving the report under sec.157, may direct an investigation, or, if he thinks fit, at once proceed, or depute any entering on an investigation. Sec.164 empowers certain Magistrates to record statements Magistrate subordinate to him to proceed, to hold a preliminary inquiry into, or otherwise to dispose of, the case in manner provided in the Code (sec.159). The Magistrate can thus direct the police to make an investigation even if the officer in charge of the police station thinks that it is not worthwhile to investigate the case or that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation. Sec.164 empowers certain Magistrates to record statements or confessions in the course of the investigation and when a search is made by the investigating officer, the record of the search is required to be sent to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence under sec.165. If the investigation cannot be completed within twenty-four hours, the investigating officer must send the accused forthwith to the nearest Judicial Magistrate together with a copy of the entries in the diary relating to the case and the Magistrate may, in such a case, whether or not he has jurisdiction to try the case, authorize the detention of the accused in custody for a term not exceeding fifteen days (sec.167). These provisions are clearly intended to secure that an investigation does not take place into a reported offence and the investigation is carried out within the limits of the law without causing any harassment to the accused and is completed without unnecessary or undue delay. The manner and method of conducting the investigation are, however, left entirely to the police and the Magistrate has no under any provision of the Code to interfere with the same.
4. Now, if upon an investigation under Chapter XIV it appears to the officer in charge of the police station or to the officer making the investigation that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, says sec.169, release the accused, if in custody, on his executing a bond, to
appear, if and when required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial. If on the other hand it appears to the officer in charge of the police station, upon an investigation under Chapter XIV, that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer is required under sec.170 to forward the accused to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence and try the accused or commit him for trial or,if the offence is bailable, take security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate. In either case, on the completion of the investigation, the officer in charge of the police station has to submit a report to the Magistrate under sec.173 in the prescribed form furnishing various details. Sub-sec.(1) of that section provides that every investigation under the Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay, and, as soon as it is completed,the officer in charge of the police station shall :-
(a) forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report a report, in the form prescribed by the State Government, setting forth the names of the parties, the nature of the information and the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case, and stating whether the accused (if arrested) has been forwarded in custody or has been released on his bond, and, if whether with or without securities, and
(b) communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.
What is to be done by the Magistrate on receiving the report under section 173 is a matter as shall presently consider before we do so, it is necessary to advert to one or two other matters. We must first refer to sec.173 sub-sec.(3) for in the minority judgement of
D.N. Das Gupta, J., in the Calcutta case strong reliance has been placed on this provision and the power of the Magistrate to call for a chargesheet is found in this provision. Sec.173 sub-sec.(3) enacts that whenever it appears to the Magistrate from the report forwarded under sec.173 that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit.
This provision in our opinion does not confer any power on the Magistrate to call for a chargesheet but that we shall discuss later when we deal with the arguments of the parties. The other matter which it is necessary to point out is that neither sec.173 nor for the matter of that any other provision of the Code uses the expression chargesheet or final report. Sec.173 talks only for a resort to be submitted by the police on completion of the investigation and that report has to be submitted whether the case falls within sec.169 or to a report made by a police in a case falling within sec.170, in both cases the report is generically a report under section 173. But when we turn to the Bombay Police Manual which contains inter alia Rules and Regulations made by the Inspector General of Police, we find that a distinction is made between the two types of cases. The report to be made by the police in a case falling within sec.170 where there is sufficient evidence to justify the sending of the accused to the Magistrate is called a chargesheet in Rule 218 and that Rule says that in the chargesheet shall be in Form
C.P.C. 20 and shall comply with the requirements specified in that Rule. Where the case falls within sec.169, that is, there is no sufficient evidence to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, the report to be submitted by the police is termed as final report and Rule 219 directs that such final report shall be submitted by the Police Station Officer through the Superintendent of Police or the Sub-Divisional Officer and while forwarding such final report, a request should be made to the Magistrate to classify the case and to issue an appropriate Summary of his order. There are three kinds of summary which can be asked for by the investigating officer when he is of the opinion that there is no sufficient evidence to justify the forwarding of the accused to the Magistrate. A request for A Summary is to be made when the police officer investigating the case is of the view that the offence is true but undetected and where there is no clue whatever about the culprits or property or where the accused is known but there is no evidence to justify his being sent up for trial, B Summary is to be asked for when the complaint is maliciously false and C Summary when the complaint is neither true nor false, that is, due to mistake of facts or is of the civil nature. Whether the report to be submitted under sec.173 should be a chargesheet or a final report, therefore, depends upon whether the case falls within sec.170 or sec.169 and having regard to the sec.169 and having regard to the words of subjective satisfaction used in both these sections as indicated by the use of the expression If.... it appears to the officer in charge of the police station, that in its turn depends upon the opinion formed by the officer in charge of the police
station or the investigating officer as to whether there is sufficient evidence or not for placing the accused on trial. As observed by the Supreme Court in H.N. Rishbud V.State of Delhi, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 196 at page 201: ...the formation of the opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial is to be that of the officer in charge of the police station and that opinion determines whether the report under sec.173 is to be a chargesheet or a final report. The chargesheet is submitted when the police station officer is of the opinion that there is a case for placing the accused on trial while the final report is submitted when the police station officer is of the opinion that there is no such case and in the latter case the police station officer may ask for one of three Summaries, namely, A, B or C.”
7.04. Thus, irrespective of the fact whether an accused is to be chargesheeted or not, investigating officer is bound to submit final report before the concerned Magistrate. As stated above, after conclusion of the investigation, if the investigating officer is of the opinion that against the accused persons named in he FIR, there is no sufficient material, the concerned investigating officer is bound to submit a final report in the form of Summary and the the concerned investigating officer is required to ask for one of the three Summaries namely A, B, or C. Mere on releasing an accused under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and/or making a mention in Column No.2 of the chargesheet filed against some other accused, that other accused are not arrested as there is no sufficient evidence against them, as such cannot be said to be a final report submitted by the investigating officer as contemplated under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It cannot be disputed that after a final report is submitted by the concerned investigating officer and any summary either A, B, or C is asked with respect to some of he accused persons named in the FIR, the learned Magistrate is not bound to accept the said A, B, or C Summary report and the learned Magistrate is required to consider the same independently considering the documents on record. In such an eventuality what is to be done by the concerned Magistrate is discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Bansal and another Versus Jarajarla Vats and others, reported in 2008 Criminal Law Journal 428, wherein in paragraph Nos. 5 to 11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under :-
5. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the "Code") to file a protest petition by the informant who lodged the first information report. But this has been the practice. Absence of a provision in the Code relating to filing of a protest petition has been considered. This Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Another (AIR 1985 SC 1285), stressed on the desirability of intimation being given to the informant when a report made under Section 173 (2) is under consideration. The Court (in para 4) held as follows:
"....There can, therefore, be no doubt that when, on a consideration of the report made by the officer-in-charge of a police station under sub- section (2)(i) of Section 173, the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that he can make his submission to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process. We are accordingly of the view that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceeding 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 notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report "
6. Therefore, there is no shadow of doubt that the informant is entitled to a notice and an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report. This
Court further held that the position is different so far as an injured person or a relative of the deceased, who is not an informant, is concerned. They are not entitled to any notice. This Court felt that the question relating to issue of notice and grant of opportunity as afore- described was of general importance and directed that copies of the judgment be sent to the High Courts in all the States so that the High Courts in their turn may circulate the same among the Magistrates within their respective jurisdictions.
7. In Abhinandan Jha and another v. Dinesh Mishra (AIR 1968 SC 117), this Court while considering the provisions of Sections 156(3), 169, 178 and 190 of the Code held that there is no power, expressly or impliedly conferred, under the Code, on a Magistrate to call upon the police to submit a charge sheet, when they have sent a report under Section 169 of the Code, that there is no case made out for sending up an accused for trial. The functions of the Magistrate and the police are entirely different, and the Magistrate cannot impinge upon the jurisdiction of the police, by compelling them to change their opinion so as to accord with his view. However, he is not deprived of the power to proceed with the matter. There is no obligation on the Magistrate to accept the report if he does not agree with the opinion formed by the police. The power to take cognizance notwithstanding formation of the opinion by the police which is the final stage in the investigation has been provided for in Section 190(1) (c).
8. When a report forwarded by the police to the Magistrate under Section 173(2)(i) is placed before him several situations arise. The report may conclude that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person or persons and in such a case, the Magistrate may either (1) accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or (2) may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding, or
(3) may direct further investigation under Section 156(3) and require the police to make a further report. The report may on the other hand state that according to the police, no offence appears to have been committed. When such a report is placed before the Magistrate he has again option of adopting one of the three courses open i.e., (1) he may accept the report and drop the proceeding; or (2) he may disagree with the report and take the view that there is sufficient ground for further proceeding, take cognizance of the offence and issue process; or (3) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under Section
156(3). The position is, therefore, now well-settled that upon receipt of a police report under Section 173(2) a
Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused. The Magistrate can take into account the statements of the witnesses examined by the police during the investigation and take cognizance of the offence complained of and order the issue of process to the accused. Section 190(1)(b) does not lay down that a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only if the Investigating Officer gives an opinion that the investigation has made out a case against the accused. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, exercise of his powers under Section 190(1)(b) and direct the issue of process to the accused. The Magistrate is not bound in such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in Sections 200 and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance of a case under Section 190(1)(a) though it is open to him to act under Section 200 or Section 202 also. [See M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and another (AIR 1989 SC 885)]. The informant is not prejudicially affected when the Magistrate decides to take cognizance and to proceed with the case. But where the Magistrate decides that sufficient ground does not subsist for proceeding further and drops the proceeding or takes the view that there is material for proceeding against some and there are insufficient grounds in respect of others, the informant would certainly be prejudiced as the First Information Report lodged becomes wholly or partially ineffective. Therefore, this Court indicated in Bhagwant Singh's case (supra) that where the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance and to drop the proceeding or takes a view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the First Information Report, notice to the informant and grant of opportunity of being heard in the matter becomes mandatory. As indicated above, there is no provision in the Code for issue of a notice in that regard.
9. We may add here that the expressions charge- sheet "or final report" are not used in the Code, but it is understood in Police Manuals of several States containing the Rules and the Regulations to be a report by the police filed under Section 170 of the Code, described as a "charge-sheet". In case of reports sent under Section 169, i.e., where there is no sufficiency of evidence to justify forwarding of a case to a Magistrate, it is termed variously i.e., referred charge, final report or summary. Section 173 in terms does not refer to any notice to be given to raise any protest to the report submitted by the police. Though the notice issued
under some of the Police Manuals states it to be a notice under Section 173 of the Code, though there is nothing in Section 173 specifically providing for such a notice.
10. As decided by this Court in Bhagwant Singh's case (supra), the Magistrate has to give the notice to the informant and provide an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report. It was noted as follows:- AIR 1985 SC 1285
"....the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report..."
11. Therefore, the stress is on the issue of notice by the Magistrate at the time of consideration of the report. If the informant is not aware as to when the matter is to be considered, obviously, he cannot be faulted, even if protest petition in reply to the notice issued by the police has been filed belatedly. But as indicated in Bhagwant Singh's case (supra) the right is conferred on the informant and none else.”
7.05. Apart from above, even under the Bombay Police Manual also, there is requirement of submitting final report by the concerned investigating officer as contemplated under clause 232 of the Bombay Police Manual.
7.06. Identical question came to be considered by this Court in the case of Dharmendra Kishorbhai Virani (supra) wherein FIR was lodged against three accused persons, however, only one accused was chargesheeted and other co- accused were dropped / not chargesheeted without submitting any final report with respect to those two accused, who were named in the FIR and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shah Lakhamshi Amarshi (supra), this Court has observed and held in para 6 to 8 as under :-
“6. It is required to be noted that the complaint was filed against three accused persons viz. Nilesh Chauhan, Subhash Savaliya and Deven Marvadi being I CR No. 41 of 2006 registered at Lodhika Police Station for the offences under sections 306 & 114 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet only against one accused person namely Nilesh Chauhan and dropped two other co-accused persons namely Subhash Savaliya and Deven Marvadi and unfortunately, the learned JMFC accepted the said charge-sheet qua only one accused i.e. Nilesh Chauhan. It is an admitted position that no summary report such as A or B or C summary report has been submitted qua other two accused persons i.e. Subhash Savaliya and Deven Marvadi. Identical question came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Adesing Bavabhai & Others (supra). In that case, at the end of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed as regards the accused No.1 only and no summary was asked for so far as other accused Nos.2 to 7 are concerned and considering the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in case of State V/s. Lakhamshi reported in VII GLR 130, the Division Bench criticized the action of the Investigating Officer in not charge-sheeting the other co- accused and/or not submitting any summary. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case considered para – 4 of decision in the case of Lakhamshi (supra) which reads as under :-
“Now if upon an investigation under Chapter XIV it appears to the officer in charge of the police station or to the officer making the investigation that t here is not sufficient evidence of reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, says sec.169, release the accused, if in custody, on his
executing a bond, to appear, if and when required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial. If on the other hand it appears to the officer in charge of the police-station, upon an investigation under Chapter XIV, that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer is required under sec.170 to forward the accused to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of th offence to try the accused or commit him for trial or, if the offence is bailable, take security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate. In either case, on the completion of the investigation; the officer in charge of the police station has to submit a report to the Magistrate under sec.173 in the prescribed form furnishing various details. Sub-sec. (1) of the at section provides that every investigation under the Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay, and, as soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall :-
(a) forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police- report, in the form prescribed by the State Government, setting forth the names of the parties, the nature of the information and the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case, and stating whether the accused (if
arrested) has been forwarded in custody or has been released on his bond, and, if so, whether with or without sureties, and
(b) communicate in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.”
7. After considering the above para – 4 of the decision in case of Lakhamshi (supra), the Division Bench has further observed as under :-
“The final report of the completion of the investigation may, according to this Full Bench decision, take either of the two forms. If, according to the Police Officer, the investigation discloses that an offence has been committed by the accused, he has to submit a charge-sheet against the accused persons. If, on the other hand, he comes to the conclusion that the investigation does not disclose any offence, he has to submit a report in another form prescribed by the State Government asking for what is known as (A) or (B) or (C) summary, as the case may be; but in any event the final report either in the form of a charge-sheet or in the form of a report asking for a particular type of summary has to be submitted by the Investigating Officer. In the instant case, what has been done is that at the end of the investigation only the charge-sheet was filed as regards accused No.1 and no summary appears to have been asked for so far as
accused Nos. 2 to 7 were concerned. The scheme of the sections of the Cr.P.C. makes it clear that the judiciary, viz., the Magistrate concerned with the case, should be kept informed about the commencement of the investigation and also about the completion of the investigation. As the above mentioned Full Bench decision points out, the Magistrate to whom the final report is made under sec.173 is not bound to accept the opinion of the Public Officer regarding the non-commission of the offence by the accused in question. It is open to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence himself under sec.190 Cr.P.C. or to call for further report from the Investigating Officer; but the final word in such cases rests not with the Investigating Officer but with the Magistrate. Overlooking the provisions of sec.173 Cr.P.C. arid disregarding the provisions of the Police Manual, no report asking for a particular type of summary regarding accused Nos.2 to 7 was ever filed by the Investigating Officer and no summary was asked for as regards accused Nos.2 to 7.”
8. In the instant case, what has been done is that at the end of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed as regards only one accused viz. Nilesh Chauhan and no summary has been asked for so far as other two accused persons viz. Subhash Savaliya and Deven Marvadi are concerned. Considering the various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code as well as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Adesing Bavabhai & Others (supra), it was incumbent on the part of the Investigating Officer to submit appropriate summary before the learned JMFC so far as other two accused persons are concerned. If they were of the opinion that no case is made out against them and they are not to be charge-sheeted, at that stage, if A or B or C summary report is submitted, the learned Magistrate is required to give an opportunity to the original complainant against the said report and thereafter the learned Magistrate is required to consider whether to accept the said summary report or not and at that stage also, the original complainant can object to the same and even pray for further investigation also. In the present case, the learned Magistrate straight way accepted the charge-sheet only qua accused – Nilesh Chauhan and even did not consider to call upon the Investigating Officer to submit the summary against two other accused persons viz. Subhash Savaliya and Deven Marvadi and/or even did not ask why those two persons are dropped and/or not charge-sheeted and it appears that the learned Magistrate has mechanically accepted the charge-sheet only qua one accused. Under the circumstances, the action of the Investigating Officer in not charge-sheeting the other two accused persons and/or dropping them and/or even not submitting any summary against them requires to be quashed and set aside and if the Investigating Officer is of the opinion that after investigation they are not to be charge-sheeted and/or they are to be dropped then he is required to submit appropriate summary before the learned JMFC so that at that stage, the petitioner – original complainant can make his submissions against such report. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal passed below Exh.15 in Criminal Case No.7 of 2007 dated 3.7.2007 by which the application of the petitioner for further investigation under section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code is rejected also requires to be quashed and set aside reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner – original complainant to pray for further investigation at the time of consideration of the summary report, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer as stated above.”
7.07. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and aforesaid decisions and procedure to be followed by the investigating officer, it appears that in the present case, investigating officer has not followed the procedure as required to be followed with respect to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein – proposed accused, who are sought to be arraigned as accused. Neither Chargesheet has been filed against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 nor any final report has been submitted with respect to the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are named in the FIR but not chargesheeted, before the concerned Magistrate as required under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, even opportunity has not been given to the complainant to oppose such a report dropping the accused named in the FIR, by submitting a protest application.
7.08. As stated hereinabove, even in a case where any final report is submitted by the concerned investigating officer and any Summary, either A, B or C is submitted, concerned Magistrate is not bound to accept the said Summary report mechanically but the concerned Magistrate is required to apply mind and is required to take its own independent decision considering the material on record produced along with such a report and considering the same, the concerned Magistrate may disagree with such a summary / report and may refuse to grant the summary / report as prayed for by the investigating officer and may take cognizance considering the material on record or may order for further investigation, or in a case where the Magistrate agrees with the Summary, either A, B, or C, the Magistrate is required to give an opportunity to the complainant to oppose the same by way of submitting a protest application. Such a procedure has not been followed in the present case.
7.09. The contention on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 that while releasing the persons / accused named in the FIR in exercise of powers under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and mere mentioning in Column No.2 of the Chargesheet filed against other accused person, that other accused persons are not arrested as there is no sufficient material against them, is sufficient and no further final report, with respect to those accused persons who are named in the FIR but not chargesheeted as contemplated under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is required to be submitted by the investigating officer, cannot be accepted. In such a situation also the concerned investigating officer is bound to submit final report which is required to be dealt with and considered by the concerned Magistrate, as stated hereinabove.
7.10. Under the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits at this stage whether the learned Judge has committed any error in refusing to arraign respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein as accused, present Criminal Revision Application can be disposed of by directing the concerned investigating officer to follow the procedure, as stated hereinabove and submit final report with respect to the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are named in the FIR but not chargesheeted, before the concerned Magistrate and on receipt of the same, the concerned Magistrate to consider the same independently, in accordance with law and on merits, and after giving following due procedure as required, as aforesaid.
7.11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Criminal Revision Application is disposed of by directing the concerned investigating officer of Sayala Police Station - investigating officer of CR No.I-1 of 2009 to submit appropriate final report with respect to respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein before the concerned Magistrate as provided under section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and pray for appropriate summary (in case the investigating officer is of the opinion that there is no material and/or evidence against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein). As and when such a final report / summary is submitted and prayed for by the concerned investigating officer, the same shall be considered by the concerned Magistrate independently in accordance with law and on merits, as aforesaid. As stated hereinabove, the concerned Magistrate is not bound to accept and grant the summary report mechanically but the Magistrate has to take its own decision independently after applying mind and considering the material on record and considering the same, the Magistrate may disagree with the summary report and may direct to take cognizance against the accused persons and then commit the case to the Court of Sessions, if the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. However, in case, the Magistrate proposes to agree with the final report/summary report, and grant the Summary as prayed for by the concerned investigating officer, in that case, the concerned Magistrate is required to issue notice to the complainant / first informant to oppose the same and at that stage it will be open for the original complainant / first informant to submit a protest application to oppose such a final report / summary report dropping the accused, which shall be considered by the concerned Magistrate in accordance with law and on merits. However, the aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the concerned Magistrate within a period of nine months. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Sd/-
[M.R. SHAH, J.] At this stage, Mr.A.D. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein – proposed accused has requested to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the present Judgement and Order so as to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Hence, the execution, operation and implementation of the present Judgement and Order is stayed upto 28/2/2013.
[M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik