Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2022 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1305 - SC - Indian LawsMaintainability of petition - petition dismissed for want of non-prosecution - Commission of offence or not - requirement of conjoint reading of positive and negative reports submitted under the Sub-sections (2) and (8) of Section 173 respectively - scope for filling a protest petition against a report under Section 173(2) or Section 173(8) of the CrPC - final report under Section 173(2) CrPC and the supplementary report under Section 173(8) CrPC, are negative reports or not - HELD THAT:- The initial report under Section 173(2) CrPC which was submitted before the competent court after investigation found that prima facie the appellants were involved in the commission of the offences alleged. The subsequent report under Section 173(8) however has come to the conclusion that the proceedings were liable to be dropped since prima facie no case involving the commission of the offences has been established. In the judgment of this Court in Vinay Tyagi [2012 (12) TMI 1130 - SUPREME COURT] it has been held that a further investigation conducted under the orders of the court or by the police on its own accord would lead to the filing of a supplementary report. The supplementary report, the Court noted, would have to be dealt with “as part of the primary report” in view of the provisions of sub-Sections 3 to 6 of Section 173 - In terms of sub-Section 8 of Section 173, in the event of a further investigation, the report has to be forwarded to the Magistrate upon which, the provisions of sub-Sections (2) to (6) shall (as far as may be) apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded in sub-section (2). In the present case, the record before the Court indicates that upon the submission of the supplementary report, the JFCM Court - I, Alappuzha by an order dated 19 May 2018 dismissed the protest petition submitted by the first respondent for non-prosecution - the Magistrate not having done so, it was necessary to restore the proceedings back to the Magistrate so that both the reports could be read conjointly by analyzing the cumulative effect of the reports and the documents annexed thereto, if any, while determining whether there existed grounds to presume that the appellants have committed the offence. The order of the Sessions Judge restoring the proceedings back to the Magistrate was correct to that extent. Appeal disposed off.
|