The informant's right to be heard before a Magistrate is context-dependent, not absolute, and does not invalidate proceedings if not provided.

JUDGMENT :

Manju Rani Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Mr. Yashpal Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application has been filed with prayer to quash the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate [ACJM] Court No.16, Allahabad in Criminal Case No.04/2024 (State Vs. Tripurari), arising out of Case Crime No.436/2023 , under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Dhoomanganj, District-Prayagraj (Allahabad). It is further prayed to direct the A.C.J.M. Court No.16, Allahabad to provide an opportunity of hearing to the applicant before taking further cognizance.

3. Brief facts of the case are; a first information report [FIR] was lodged on 23.08.2023 at 20:55 hours by Smt. Suman Prajapati (applicant) against six persons with the allegations of being mentally and physically harassed for additional dowry demand. After investigation charge sheet was submitted on 19.11.2023 only against Tripurari Prajapati whereas final report was submitted in favour of Santlal, Smt. Lalmani Devi, Smt. Pratibha, Smt. Sandhya and Divya on 19.11.2023. The charge sheet dated 19.11.2023 was placed before the Court concerned on 30.01.2024 and the Court concerned took cognizance and summoned Tripurari Prajapati fixing 28.01.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has challenged the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the Court concerned summoning Tripurari Prajapati against whom a charge sheet has been submitted without providing any opportunity to the applicant (informant in the present case) before taking cognizance in the matter.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [ Cr.P.C .] 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 below. 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.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits 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 learned 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 Tripurari Prajapati and not against the others, who were named in the FIR, though they were exonerated is illegal and against the principles of natural justice.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that the Investigating Officer should have informed the applicant about the charge sheet being submitted against opposite party no.2 and final report being submitted against other persons and also before passing any orders the Court concerned should have issued notices to the informant and after providing an opportunity of hearing should have taken cognizance. In support of his submission he has relied upon judgement of Apex Court passed in case of Bhagwat Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and Anr , AIR 1985 SC 1285 . Thus, order dated 30.01.2024 is illegal and is liable to be quashed.

8. Learned A.G.A. submits that at this stage issuing notice to the informant giving an opportunity to him to address the Magistrate with respect to non-charge sheeted persons, would prolong the matter causing unnecessary delay whereas there