9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1541 - SC - Indian LawsChallenge to chargesheets filed - compliance with the requirements of Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 or not - chargesheets provide sufficient details and evidence to substantiate the charges made against the accused or not - HELD THAT - Subsection (1)(a) to Section 173 of the 1898 Code had stipulated that as soon as the investigation is completed the officer in-charge of the police station shall forward to the Magistrate a report in the form prescribed by the local government sending forth the names of the parties nature of the information and the names of the people who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case and state whether the accused person has been forwarded in custody or released on a bond. In Tara Singh s case 1951 (6) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT the question which had arisen was whether the challan preferred by the police was complete so as to enable the court to take cognisance within the meaning of Section 190(1)(b) of the 1898 Code. It was held that a challan submitted in the said case was complete except for submission of the report of the Imperial Serologist and drawing of the sketch map of the occurrence. In this context reference was made to Section 173(1) of the 1898 Code and that the report/challan should set forth viz. the names of the parties nature of the information and names of persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case. The cognisance it was held was proper. In R.K. Dalmia 1962 (4) TMI 28 - SUPREME COURT again a reference was made to Section 173(1) of the 1898 Code and that the chargesheet must contain name of the parties nature of the information and the names of persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case. These observations were made in the context of the submission made on behalf of the accused that there was a change in the stand of the prosecution which contention was rejected on several grounds as mentioned in paragraphs 325 and 326 of the footnoted citation. The chargesheet is complete when it refers to material and evidence sufficient to take cognizance and for the trial. The nature and standard of evidence to be elucidated in a chargesheet should prima facie show that an offence is established if the material and evidence is proven. The chargesheet is complete where a case is not exclusively dependent on further evidence. The trial can proceed on the basis of evidence and material placed on record with the chargesheet. This standard is not overly technical or fool-proof but a pragmatic balance to protect the innocent from harassment due to delay as well as prolonged incarceration and yet not curtail the right of the prosecution to forward further evidence in support of the charges. There is an inherent connect between the chargesheet submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code cognisance which is taken under Section 190 of the Code issue of process and summoning of the accused under Section 204 of the Code and thereupon issue of notice under Section 251 of the Code or the charge in terms of Chapter XVII of the Code - These provisions however have to be read along with the power of the police to investigate under sub-section (8) to Section 173 of the Code even when they have submitted a report under sub-section (2) to Section 173 of the Code. The investigating officer must make clear and complete entries of all columns in the chargesheet so that the court can clearly understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on the file. Statements under Section 161 of the Code and related documents have to be enclosed with the list of witnesses. The role played by the accused in the crime should be separately and clearly mentioned in the chargesheet for each of the accused persons. This Court in Manik Taneja and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another 2015 (1) TMI 1518 - SUPREME COURT had referred to Section 506 which prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation as defined in Section 503 of the IPC to observe that the offence under Section 503 requires that there must be an act of threating another person with causing an injury to his person reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested. This threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is entitled to do. Mere expression of any words without any intent to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring home an offence under Section 506 of the IPC. The material and evidence must be placed on record to show that the threat was made with an intent to cause alarm to the complainant or to cause them to do or omit to do an act. Considering the statutory mandate offence under Section 506 is not shown even if we accept the allegation as correct. Conclusion - The chargesheets must comply with the requirements of Section 173(2) and provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges. The chargesheet and the summoning order quashed - appellants are discharged.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment include: - Whether the chargesheets filed comply with the requirements of Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. - Whether the chargesheets provide sufficient details and evidence to substantiate the charges made against the accused. - The interpretation of the legal framework surrounding the submission of chargesheets and the role of the Magistrate in taking cognizance of the offences. - The appropriateness of the issuance of non-bailable warrants and the conditions for granting anticipatory bail. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Legal Framework and Precedents: The judgment extensively discusses Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which outlines the requirements for a police report on completion of investigation. The Court refers to the precedent set in Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand, which mandates that a chargesheet must include specific details such as the names of the parties, nature of the information, and evidence supporting the charges. The Court also examines the role of the Magistrate under Sections 190 and 204 of the Code in taking cognizance of offences and issuing process. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasizes the necessity for chargesheets to provide a comprehensive account of the investigation, including all relevant evidence and material facts. It highlights that a chargesheet should not merely replicate the First Information Report (FIR) but must substantiate the charges with evidence. The Court also discusses the Magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance of offences and the importance of a thorough examination of the chargesheet before proceeding with the case. Key Evidence and Findings: The Court finds that in several instances, chargesheets were filed without adequate evidence or details, leading to wrongful prosecution. It underscores the importance of a detailed investigation and the submission of a complete chargesheet to ensure that the accused are not subjected to unnecessary legal proceedings. Application of Law to Facts: In the cases analyzed, the Court applies the principles established in the legal framework to determine whether the chargesheets filed met the requirements of Section 173(2). It finds that many chargesheets lacked the necessary details and evidence, leading to the quashing of proceedings in several appeals. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court considers arguments regarding the sufficiency of evidence and the role of the Magistrate in taking cognizance of offences. It balances the need for thorough investigation with the rights of the accused, ensuring that chargesheets are not filed without adequate evidence. Conclusions: The Court concludes that chargesheets must comply with the requirements of Section 173(2) and provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges. It emphasizes the Magistrate's role in scrutinizing chargesheets before taking cognizance of offences. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Core Principles Established: The judgment reaffirms the necessity for detailed and evidence-backed chargesheets as per Section 173(2) of the Code. It establishes that the Magistrate must exercise discretion in taking cognizance of offences, ensuring that chargesheets are not filed without adequate evidence. Final Determinations on Each Issue: - In the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1074/2017, the Court quashes the chargesheet and the summoning order, discharging the appellants. - In the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5419/2022, the Court allows anticipatory bail for the appellants, highlighting the insufficiency of evidence in the chargesheet. - In the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9482/2021, the Court quashes the summoning order against Manager Singh and remands the matter to the Magistrate for re-examination, emphasizing the need for a detailed chargesheet. The Court also quashes non-bailable warrants issued against Manager Singh, underscoring the principle that such warrants should not be issued routinely and must be based on substantial grounds.
|
