Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Complaint Filing and Recording of Statements - A complainant files a complaint and police record the statement of the complainant and witnesses; however, the police may state that no cognizance is to be taken if proper procedure is not followed or if the complaint does not disclose a cognizable offense ["SRICHARAN MOHANTY vs BHIKARI MALLIK - Orissa"].
Cognizance and Magistrate’s Role - The magistrate's power to take cognizance depends on the proper recording of the complainant’s sworn statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and whether the complaint discloses an offense. In some cases, courts have noted that without proper procedure, cognizance may not be valid ["SRICHARAN MOHANTY vs BHIKARI MALLIK - Orissa"], ["M. Dhana Koteswara Rao s/o Uma Maheshwara Rao VS State of AP, through S. H. O. Penamaluru Police Station - Andhra Pradesh"].
Police Investigation and Final Reports - Police may file a final report after investigation, which can be challenged if the court finds no sufficient evidence or if the procedure for taking cognizance was not properly followed. The court can remand the matter for recording sworn statements or reject the final report if procedural lapses are found ["SRICHARAN MOHANTY vs BHIKARI MALLIK - Orissa"], ["AVTAR SINGH VS STATE - Delhi"].
Court’s Power to Proceed - The court has supervisory authority to direct police to record sworn statements and to ensure proper procedure before taking cognizance. Orders for further recording of statements or for filing chargesheets are made when procedural requirements are not initially met ["M. Dhana Koteswara Rao s/o Uma Maheshwara Rao VS State of AP, through S. H. O. Penamaluru Police Station - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Basina Veera Venkata VS State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh"].
Summary of Main Point - Filing a complaint and recording statements are essential steps in initiating cognizance. If police or courts bypass these steps or act without proper procedure, the order of cognizance can be challenged or may be deemed invalid. The complainant’s statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. is crucial for proper cognizance ["SRICHARAN MOHANTY vs BHIKARI MALLIK - Orissa"], ["SRICHARAN MOHANTY vs BHIKARI MALLIK - Orissa"].
References:- ["SRICHARAN MOHANTY vs BHIKARI MALLIK - Orissa"]- ["SRICHARAN MOHANTY vs BHIKARI MALLIK - Orissa"]- ["Shaik Mohammed Shabuddin, S/o. S. M. Tajuddin VS State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["SRICHARAN MOHANTY vs BHIKARI MALLIK - Orissa"]- ["SUJATA SURAJ BHATIA VS STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"]- ["M. Dhana Koteswara Rao s/o Uma Maheshwara Rao VS State of AP, through S. H. O. Penamaluru Police Station - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["Pasupalleti Srinivasa Rao VS State of A. P. - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["SRICHARAN MOHANTY vs BHIKARI MALLIK - Orissa"]- ["Bhagabat Sahoo VS State of Orissa` - Orissa"]- ["LALJI DHOBI VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["Avik Bid, S/o. Maloy Kumar Bid vs State By Jalahalli Police Station, Represented By Its Inspector Of Police - Karnataka"]- ["Sakaran Chettis VS Mari - Crimes"]- ["SRICHARAN MOHANTY vs BHIKARI MALLIK - Orissa"]- ["ABHISHEK CHOURE VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh"]- ["Ramu VS State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Oomatchikulam Police Station, Madurai District - Madras"]- ["AVTAR SINGH VS STATE - Delhi"]- ["Basina Veera Venkata VS State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh"]
Imagine filing a complaint with a magistrate, who orders a police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The police record your statement, investigate, and then submit a final report under Section 173 CrPC stating no case is made out—a so-called 'closure report' or adverse report. You're left wondering: Can the magistrate simply disagree and direct the police to file a charge-sheet instead?
This common scenario raises critical questions about judicial powers, police roles, and complainant rights. Many complainants face this situation, often leading to frustration when proceedings stall. In this guide, we break down the legal procedure, drawing from established CrPC provisions and key judgments. Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your case.
A typical query arises: A complainant files a complaint, the magistrate records the statement and directs police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC. After investigation, police conclude 'no cognizance' or no offence, submitting a closure report. What next?
Short answer: The magistrate cannot direct the police to file a charge-sheet. Instead, the matter reverts to a 'complaint case' under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC. The magistrate must independently assess the original complaint, examine the complainant and witnesses under Section 200 CrPC on oath, or direct further inquiry under Section 202 CrPC if needed. Cognizance may still be taken if prima facie grounds exist, but strictly following complaint procedures—not police report protocols. Vasanti Dubey VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 49
This preserves safeguards against frivolous cases while upholding judicial discretion.
When a magistrate directs investigation under Section 156(3) before taking cognizance, the police report under Section 173(1) doesn't bind the court. Here's what typically happens:
Critically, he cannot straightway direct submission of the charge-sheet by the police. Vasanti Dubey VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 49 Directing a charge-sheet upon disagreement is an error of jurisdiction, as it bypasses mandatory complaint safeguards. Section 200 CrPC requires: A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any... Srinivas Gundluri VS SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation - 2010 6 Supreme 33
Refusal to conduct this examination before rejecting a closure report is erroneous, protecting against vexatious prosecutions. Srinivas Gundluri VS SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation - 2010 6 Supreme 33
Complainants often file a 'protest petition' against the closure report. If supported by affidavits or fresh evidence, it's treated as a fresh complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC, triggering Chapter XV procedures.
Once the CJM was relying upon additional material in the form of evidence produced by the complainant along with the Protest Petition then the only option for the CJM was to treat it as a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and proceed accordingly. Mukhtar Zaidi VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 4 Supreme 1
The Supreme Court in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari clarified: If a Protest Petition fulfils the requirements of a complaint, the Magistrate may treat the Protest Petition as a complaint and deal with the same as required under Section 200 read with Section 202 of the Code. Mukhtar Zaidi VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 4 Supreme 1
Mere reliance on the case diary for disagreement falls under Section 190(1)(b), but affidavits elevate it to a full complaint case.
Cases from FIRs (Section 154 CrPC) differ—magistrates can't convert them into complaints mid-proceeding. But complaint-directed investigations retain their 'complaint' nature: A case based on a complaint cannot be allowed to be dealt with and proceeded as if it were a case based on Police report. Vasanti Dubey VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 49
For non-cognizable offences, police reports are 'deemed complaints' under Section 2(d) Explanation, but pre-cognizance directions like 156(3) keep the complaint framework. State Of Bihar VS Chandra Bhushan Singh - 2000 8 Supreme 450
Judgments reinforce these rules. In one case, after a magistrate directed police inquiry and received an adverse report, issuing process without reasons was quashed. Once the Magistrate has directed police enquiry, he has to take into consideration the report submitted by the police... In either situation the Magistrate is under obligation to record his reasons for accepting or rejecting the police report. Vipin s/o. Vincent Bower VS State of Maharashtra - 2014 Supreme(Bom) 401
The court noted: The Magistrate cannot mechanically proceed with the matter by ignoring the police report. Vipin s/o. Vincent Bower VS State of Maharashtra - 2014 Supreme(Bom) 401 Both trial and sessions courts erred by emphasizing complainant statements over the detailed police findings without comment. Vipin s/o. Vincent Bower VS State of Maharashtra - 2014 Supreme(Bom) 401
Similarly, in another matter, police reported no offence after inquiry into church visit restrictions, yet process issued sans reasons—proceedings quashed. Vipin VS State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer - 2014 Supreme(Bom) 402
Other precedents highlight procedural lapses: Magistrates rejected 156(3) applications without recording complainant statements first, as prima facie review is needed. Jaipur Ex-Servicemen Welfare Coop. Society VS State - 2012 Supreme(Raj) 195 In quashing petitions, courts stress cogent reasons for overriding adverse reports. SRICHARAN MOHANTY vs BHIKARI MALLIKKISHORE KU.SARANGI vs STATE
Recommendations:- For Complainants: File protest petitions with affidavits post-closure, verifying police remedies exhausted.- For Magistrates: Note disagreement reasons explicitly, conduct Section 200 inquiry before summons.- For Accused: Challenge via Section 482 CrPC if procedures flouted (e.g., no Section 200, direct charge-sheet orders).- Proceed swiftly to avoid Section 468 CrPC limitation, from complaint filing date.
| Scenario | Magistrate Action ||----------|-------------------|| Agree with closure | Dismiss complaint || Disagree, no protest | Section 200/202 on original complaint || Protest with evidence | Treat as new complaint under Section 200 || Never | Direct police charge-sheet |
Understanding these steps empowers complainants and ensures fair process.
Police closure reports after 156(3) investigations don't end the road—they shift gears to complaint procedures. Magistrates hold discretion but must follow CrPC mandates, recording reasons and examining evidence to balance justice. Frivolous cases get filtered, genuine ones proceed.
Stay informed, act promptly with protest petitions, and seek professional guidance. Legal landscapes evolve, but these principles from Supreme Court and High Court rulings remain foundational. Vasanti Dubey VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 49Mukhtar Zaidi VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 4 Supreme 1
References:1. Vasanti Dubey VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 49: Core on post-closure options, no charge-sheet direction.2. Mukhtar Zaidi VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 4 Supreme 1: Protest petitions as complaints.3. Srinivas Gundluri VS SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation - 2010 6 Supreme 33: Sections 173, 200, 202 excerpts.4. State Of Bihar VS Chandra Bhushan Singh - 2000 8 Supreme 450: Complaint definitions.5. State of Goa VS Jose Maria Albert Vales @ Robert Vales - 2017 8 Supreme 586: Procedure distinctions.6. Vipin s/o. Vincent Bower VS State of Maharashtra - 2014 Supreme(Bom) 401, Vipin VS State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer - 2014 Supreme(Bom) 402: Reasons for rejecting reports.
#CrPC #LegalProcedure #PoliceReport
On receipt of such complaint, statement of the opposite party-complainant and his wit nesses were recorded and pursuant to the same, the trial ... As no act ion was taken on the same, the opposite party-complainant further had been to the police stati had been to the police station to report against one Nabaghana Mallik and Braja Das. ... None appears for the opposite party-complainant.
From the aforesaid order it is clear that although perusal of the complaint petition a nd initial statement of the complainant and some documents ... Complaint is to file requisites within a week hence. ... Hence, cognizanc e U/s. 498(A)/506/34 I.P.C., 4 D.P. Act and 3 of SC & ST Act is taken. ... Perused the complaint p etition, initial statement and the documents available on record. ... The counsel for the complainant fil es a memo to close the evidence. H ence, put up later f....
In any event, the requirement of recording the sworn statement of the complainant, under section 200 of Cr.P.C., was complied with. 19. ... The Magistrate after considering the final report, recording the sworn statement of the Complainant and after hearing the argument of the learned counsel for the de facto complainant had come to the conclusion that the final report was not acceptable and correct. ... No. 52 of 2017, under section 227 of Cr.P.C., for discharging th....
The police has already filed final form on completion of investigation. ... Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the complainant has Considering the above facts and circumstances as the court has taken cognizanc 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
Makwana of the Mahidharpura Police Station to appear at Galemandi Chowki on 20.03.2018 and the accused No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 were also summoned, wherein statement of I - the complainant and the statement of the accused 2, 3, 7 were also recorded. ... Mahidharpura Police Station Shri Vijaybhai Phone called me the complainant on my mobile phone and informed me that, the accused No. 5 has lodged complaint against you and therefore, come to give your statement. Therefore, ....
One fine day, applicant was called upon by the police officers for the purpose of recording his statement pertaining to the said issue about addition of Section 307 in the charge- sheet papers. ... Therefore, he went to the police station and at that point of time, instead of recording his statement, he was ill-treated, harassed, abused and beaten black and blue by the police officers. In short atrocities were meted upon him by the police officers wi....
Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 30.01.2017 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur, whereby cognizanc ... The complainant is well justified to present the cheque which was part of the agreement. ... The petitioners took the complainant for a ride on the pretext of defeated the rights of the complainant by deceiving him to ` 5 lacs issued as a security at the time of compromise had been presented by the complainant
The matter is remanded to the learned Magistrate for recording the sworn statement of the complainant. Liberty is given to the complainant to appear before the learned Magistrate for sworn statement. ... The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that after filing of the charge sheet by the police and after recording the statement of the complainant, in pursuant to the protest petition, either the Magistrate has to take cognizance ....
) to (D) or Section 326(A) and (B) or Section 509 I.P.C, if she comes to the police station to give report by oral statement, such statement shall be recorded either by a female police officer or other officer. ... Further more under Section 161(3) proviso (1) of the Cr.P.C amended, with effect from 03.02.2013, in such a case referred supra the recording of the statement of such victim in the course of investigation is also by a female police officer. ... No.2228 of 2....
08.08.2017 CRLMC No.1595 of 2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State ... , so also le arned counsel for the opposite party no.2-complainant. ... The petitioner in this case has challenged such order taking cognizanc Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2-complainant does not dispu It appears that a complaint petition was filed by the opposite party n o.2-c....
However, the petitioner is at liberty to file petition for bail after recording the statement of injured and complainant."
In the present matter it can not be said that the I.O. conducted the investigation in a slip shod manner. Proper and satisfactory explanation for not recording the statements of the injured witnesses shifted for treatment to the Medical College, Meerut was given by the second I.O. Statement of the complainant was recorded just after registering the case at the police station concerned itself. Entries made in the G.D. were also proved by the prosecution as required under the law.
The police reported to the learned Magistrate that the complainant/non-applicant No. 2 and her brother Shekhar started a campaign to tell the devotees that applicant No. 1 was not offering prayers properly to the God and therefore, the devotees should not visit the said Church. Since non-applicant No. 2 and her brother Shekhar started such a campaign, the applicants put a restriction on their visit to the Church. 4. The learned Magistrate, after recording the statement of the complainant on oath, directed police enquiry.
4. The learned Magistrate, after recording the statement of the complainant on oath, directed police enquiry. The police reported to the learned Magistrate that the complainant/non-applicant No.2 and her brother Shekhar started a campaign to tell the devotees that applicant No.1 was not offering prayers properly to the God and therefore, the devotees should not visit the said Church. Since non-applicant No.2 and her brother Shekhar started such a campaign, the applicants put a restriction on their visit to the Church.
The order directing the complainat for recording his evidence was not followed and the ACJM was requested to directly send the complaint to the police station without recording the statement of the complainant. He stated that the order rejecting the application is just and proper. 9. Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has contended that the ACJM has already passed the order for recording the evidence of the complainant before sending the complaint for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Bajaj Nagar.
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
