Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI, AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND D.P. MADON, JJ.
Bhagwant Singh, Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner of Police and another, Respondents.
Contempt Petn. No. 4998 of 1983 in Criminal Writ. Petn. No. 6607 of 1981, D/- 25-4-1985.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advocate, A. C. and Ms. Madhu Singh, Advocate with him, for Petitioner ; Mr. S. C. Maheswari, Mr. G. D. Gupta and Mr. R. N. Poddar, Advocates for Respondents.
Key Points: - The informant must be given an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the police report if the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance and to drop the proceedings or to proceed against some persons (!) . - The informant is entitled to receive a copy of the police report forwarded to the Magistrate under Section 173(2)(i) and to be informed of action taken by the police under Section 173(2)(ii) (!) . - If the report states that no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate may drop the proceeding or proceed against others; the informant’s interests are protected by requiring hearing in such cases (!) . - The injured person or a relative of the deceased may appear and make submissions at the time of consideration of the report, but they are not automatically entitled to notice; the Magistrate is bound to hear them if they appear, and may, in discretion, give notice, though lack of notice does not invalidate the order (!) . - The judgment directs that copies of the judgment be circulated to High Courts and Magistrates nationwide for guidance on these points (!) . - The discussion covers the relevant provisions: CrPC 154, 156, 157, 173, 190(1)(b) and their interplay with informant rights and Magistrate’s options upon receiving a police report (!) (!)
Judgment
BHAGWATI, J.:- The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether in a case where First Information Report is lodged and after completion of investigation initiated on the basis of the First Information Report, the police submits a report that no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate can accept the report and drop the proceeding without issuing notice to the first informant or to the injured or in case the incident has resulted in death, to the relatives of the deceased. It is not necessary to state the facts giving rise to this writ petition, because so far as this writ petition is concerned, we have already directed by our order dated 28th November, 1983 that before any final order is passed on the report of the Central Bureau of Investigation by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioner who is the father of the unfortunate Gurinder Kaur should be heard. Gurinder Kaur died as a result of burns received by her and allegedly she was burnt by her husband and his parents on account of failure to satisfy their demand for dowry. The circumstances in which Gurinder Kaur met with her unnatural death were investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation and a report was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 11th August, 1982 stating that in their opinion in respect of the unnatural death of Gurinder Kaur no offence appeared to have been committed. The petitioner was however not aware that such a report had been submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation and he, therefore, brought an application for initiating proceedings for contempt against the Central Bureau of Investigation on the ground that the Central Bureau of Investigation had not completed their investigation and submitted their report within the period stipulated by the Court by its earlier order dated 6th May, 1983. It was in reply to this application for initiation of contempt proceedings that the Central Bureau of Investigation intimated that they had already filed their report in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 11th August, 1982 and the report was pending consideration by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. When this fact was brought to our notice we immediately passed an order dated 28th November, 1983 directing that the petitioner should be heard before any final order was passed on the report. There was no objection on the part of the respondents to the making of this order, but since the question whether in cases of this kind, the first informant or any relative of the deceased or any other aggrieved person is entitled to be heard at the time of consideration of the report by the Magistrate and whether the Magistrate is bound to issue notice to any such person, is a question of general importance which is likely to arise frequently in criminal proceedings, we thought that it would be desirable to finally settle this question so as to afford guidance to the Courts of Magistrates all over the country and we accordingly proceeded to hear the arguments on both sides in regard to this question.
2. It is necessary to refer to a few provisions of the Criminal P.C., 1973 in order to arrive at a proper determination of this question. Chapter XII of the Criminal P.C., 1973 deals with information to the police and their powers to investigate. Sub-sec. (1) of S. 154 provides that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if, given orally to an officer-in-charge of a police station, shall be reduced in writing by him or under his direction and be read over to the informant and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing, shall be signed by the person giving it and sub-section (2) of that section requires that a copy of such information shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. Section 156 subsection (1) vests in the officer-in-charge of a police station the power
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
