SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1967 Supreme(SC) 141

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
Abhinandan Jha and others, Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Mishra, Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 218 and 238 of 1966
D/- 17-4-1967. 118
Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 1966.
Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 1966.
Advocates Appeared
M/s B. P. Jha and Subhag Mal Jain, Advocates, for Appellants (In Cr. A. No. 218 of 1966): M/s. Nuruddin Ahmed and R. C. Prasad, Advocates, for Appellants (In Cr. A. No 238 of 1966); Mr. U. P. Singh, Advocate, for the Respondents (In both the Appeals).

Advocates:
B.P.JHA, Nuruddin Ahmed, R.C.Prasad, SOBHAG MAL JAIN, Udaipratap Singh

A Magistrate has no power to direct the police to submit a charge-sheet after receiving a final report under Section 173 of the CrPC.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 173 - MAGISTRATE'S POWER TO DIRECT POLICE TO SUBMIT CHARGE-SHEET AFTER RECEIVING FINAL REPORT - HELD, MAGISTRATE HAS NO SUCH POWER.

Fact of the Case:

In two criminal appeals, the issue was whether a Magistrate can direct the police to submit a charge-sheet after receiving a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). In one case, the police submitted a final report stating that the offence complained of was false. In the other case, the police submitted a final report stating that the girl concerned had been recovered and that she had stated that she had eloped of her own accord. The Magistrate in both cases directed the police to submit a charge-sheet, which was upheld by the lower courts.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that a Magistrate has no power to direct the police to submit a charge-sheet after receiving a final report under Section 173 of the CrPC. The Court reasoned that the scheme of Chapter XIV of the CrPC, which deals with investigation of offences, clearly indicates that the formation of an opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial is that of the investigating officers and the Magistrate cannot compel the police to form a particular opinion on the investigation and to submit a report according to such opinion.

Issues: 1. Whether a Magistrate has the power to direct the police to submit a charge-sheet after receiving a final report under Section 173 of the CrPC?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The scheme of Chapter XIV of the CrPC clearly indicates that the formation of an opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial is that of the investigating officers and the Magistrate cannot compel the police to form a particular opinion on the investigation and to submit a report according to such opinion.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the Magistrate directing the police to file a charge-sheet.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:

  • A Magistrate does not have the authority to direct the police to submit a charge-sheet after receiving a final report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) (!) (!) .
  • The scheme of the CrPC, particularly Chapter XIV, emphasizes that the formation of an opinion regarding whether there is sufficient ground to place the accused on trial is the responsibility of the investigating officers, not the Magistrate (!) .
  • The police, after investigation, submit reports under Sections 169 or 170, which are known as final reports or charge-sheets, depending on whether they find no case or sufficient grounds for prosecution (!) (!) .
  • The Magistrate's role upon receiving such a report is to exercise judicial discretion to either accept or reject the report, and to decide whether to take cognizance of the offence or to order further investigation (!) (!) .
  • The Magistrate cannot compel the police to form a specific opinion or to submit a report according to the Magistrate’s wishes; the police operate independently in their investigation (!) .
  • If the police submit a final report indicating no case is made out, the Magistrate has no inherent or implied power to order the submission of a charge-sheet contrary to the police’s conclusion (!) .
  • While the Magistrate may treat protest petitions as complaints and initiate further proceedings, they cannot override the police’s final report or compel the police to alter their investigation conclusions (!) .
  • The decision to proceed further depends on the Magistrate’s judicial discretion, and orders directing the police to file charge-sheets after final reports are not supported by the law (!) .
  • The appropriate procedure for a Magistrate when suspecting an offence, despite a final report, involves exercising discretion under the relevant sections of the CrPC, rather than issuing directives to the police to submit a charge-sheet (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.


Judgement

VAIDIALINGAM, J.:- The common question, that arises for consideration, in these two criminal appeals, by special leave, is as to whether a Magistrate can direct the police to submit a charge-sheet, when the police, after investigation into a cognizable offence, had submitted a final report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code). There is a conflict of opinion, on this point, between the various High Courts in India. The High Courts of Madras, Calcutta, Madhya Pradesh, Assam and Gujarat have taken the view that the Magistrate has no such power, whereas the Patna and Bombay High Courts have held a contrary view.

2. In Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 1966, the respondent, Dinesh Mishra, lodged a first information report, on June 3, 1965, at the Rajoun Police Station, that he saw a thatched house, of one Uma Kant Misra, situated on the northern side of his house, burning, and the petitioners herein, running away from the scene. The police made an investigation and submitted what is called a final report , under Section 173 (1) of the Code, to the effect that the offence complained of, was false. The Sub-divisional Magistrate received this report on July 13, 1965, but in the meanwhile, the respondent had filed what is termed a protest petition , challenging the correctness of the report submitted by the police. The Magistrate appears to have perused the police diary, and, after hearing the counsel for the respondent and the Public Prosecutor passed an order on Oct. 27, 1965, directing the police to submit a charge-sheet, against the petitioners, herein. The petitioners challenged this order, without success, both before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, and the Patna High Court. It was held by the High Court, following its previous decision that the Magistrate has jurisdiction to call for a charge-sheet, when he disagrees with the report submitted by the police, under Section 173 (1) of the Code. The petitioners in this appeal challenge these orders.

3. Similarly, in Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 1966, the second respondent therein, had lodged a written report, on February 24, 1964, before the police, at Malasalami police station, that his daughter, Hiramani, was missing from February 21, 1964, and that the appellants in that appeal had kidnapped her. A case, under Section 366 I. P. C. was registered against them. The police, after investigation, submitted a final report to the Magistrate, to the effect that the girl concerned, had been recovered and that she had stated that she had, of her own accord, eloped; and therefore the police stated that the case might be treated as closed.

4. The second respondent filed a protest petition in Court, challenging the statements of the police and he also flied a complaint, under Sec. 498 I. P. C. The Magistrate after a perusal of the case diary of the police, and hearing the lawyer for the appellants and the second respondent, as also the Public Prosecutor, passed an order directing the Investigating Officer to submit a charge-sheet against the accused persons, under Section 366 1. P. C. This order has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the Patna High Court. Here also, the Patna High Court, in accordance with its previous decision held that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass the order in question. All these orders are challenged by the appellants in this appeal.

5. On behalf of the appellants, in Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 1966, Mr. Jha, learned counsel, pointed out that when a final report is submitted by the police, under Section 173 (1) of the Code, stating that no case is made out, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct the police to file a charge-sheet. It may be open, counsel points out, to the Magistrate, to direct further investigation to be made by the police, or to treat the protest petition filed by the second respondent, as a complaint and take cognizance of the offence and proceed, according to law.






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top