Informants have the right to be heard before a Magistrate's decision to take cognizance of offenses, upholding procedural fairness in criminal proceedings.

Petitioner challenges the order dated 01-09-2018, taking cognizance of only the offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short IPC ) and also seeks a direction for taking cognizance of the offences under sections 498A and 294(b) .

2. Petitioner was the defacto complainant in Crime No.1593 of 2017 of Palarivattam Police Station. The FIR was registered alleging offences under Sections 498A , 294(b) and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC . In the complaint filed by the petitioner, there were specific allegations that the first accused-the husband of the defacto complainant had harassed her with demands for property. Allegations were levelled against five other accused as well. There were also specific allegations regarding injuries caused to her on account of the assault by the first accused. During the investigation also, petitioner reiterated the said allegations, especially with regard to the first accused. However, when the final report was filed, the police deleted the offences under sections 498A and 34 of the and filed a report only against the first accused, that too, for the offences under Sections 294 (b) and 323 . Pursuant to the final report, without giving any information to the informant regarding the deletion of the offence under Section 498A and also the removal of five persons from the array of accused, the learned Magistrate took cognizance only for the offence under Section 323 by the impugned order dated 01.09.2018.

Petitioner challenges the said order.

3. I have heard Sri. P.K Rakesh Kumar on behalf of Sri. K.S. Madhusoodanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor, and Sri. T. D Robin, the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 8.

4. In the complaint filed by the petitioner, there were specific allegations of cruelty meted out to her, especially by her husband for her failure to meet demands for property. The said statement has been reiterated as is noticed from the section 161 Cr.P.C statement given by her. However, when the final report was filed, curiously, the offence under Section 498A IPC was deleted from the list of offences. In this context, this Court bears in mind that the husband of the petitioner is a police officer and the investigating officer has given no plausible reason to omit section 498A .

5. However, when the final report was considered by the learned Magistrate, cognizance was taken only for the offence under section 323 IPC and refused to take cognizance for the offence under section 294(b) which was included in the final report. The petitioner as the informant was not given any notice while filing the final report or when the cognizance was taken only for one of the two offences reported by the police.

6. In the decision in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Another [ AIR 1985 SC 1285 ] , the Supreme Court has observed that when the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance of the offence or 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. After narrating the procedure to be followed while considering the final report, it was observed that:-“if the Magistrate decides that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drops the proceeding or takes the view that though there is sufficient ground for proceeding against some, there is no 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 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 cont