LexBHAGWANT SINGH versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 942 BHAGW ANT SINGH v, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR. April 25, 1981 (P.N. BHAGWATI, AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND D.P. MADON, JJ.] Criminal Procedure Code, 1913, ss. 154 and 173-First Information Report -The informant is entitled to hearing, when, on the basis of police report Magis- trate p'refers to drop the proceedings instead of taking cognizance of ojfe11ce- Person injured or relative of the person who died in the incident complained of has no such right of hearing except a standing to appear before Afagistrare the Magis- trate, of his own discretion can isst.e notice to then1 for hearing. Adn1inistrative law-Naturaljustice-Eifficulty in con1pliance with-Can- not be a ground to deny the opportunity of hearing. In a criminal case where First Information Report is lodged and the police submits a report after completion of investigatio:i initiated on the basis of such FIR that no offence appe1rs to hlv~ been co:n nitted, on the question whether in cases of this kind; the first inform tnt or any rddtive of the deceased or any other aggrieved person is entitled to be heard at the time of consideration of the Report by the Magistrat~ and whether the Magi~trate is bound to issue notice to any such person, the Court, HELD : 1 . When the report forwarded by the Officer-in-charge of a police station to the Magistrate under sub-section (2) (i) of section 173 comes up for consideration by the Magistrate, one of two different situations may arise. The report may conclude that an offence appears to have been committed by a parti- cular person or persons and in such a case, the Magistrate may do one of three things: (1) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process or (2) he may ,disagree with the report and drop the proceeding or (3) he may direct further investigation under sub-section (3) of section 156 and require the police to make a further report. The report may on the other hand state that, in the opinion of the police, no offence appears to have been committed and where such a report has been made, the Magistrate again has an option to adopt one of three courses : (1) he may accept the report and drop the proceed- ing or (2) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process Or (3) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under sub-section (3) of section 156, Where, in either of these two situations, the Magistrate decides to take cognizance of the offence and to issre process, the BHAGWANT v. COMM. OF POLiCB 943 informant is not prejudicially affected nor is the injured or in case of death, any relative of the deceased aggrieved, becau~e cognizance of the offence is taken by abe Magistrate and it is decided by the Magistrate that the case shall proceed. But if the Magistrate decides that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drops the proc.!edings or takes the view th~t though there is suffi- cient ground for proce(!ding against others mentioned in the First Information Report, the informant w0u1.1 certainly be prejudiced because the First Infor- mation Report lodged by him would have failed of its purpose ; wholly or in part. Moreover, when the interest of the inforn1ant in prompt and effective action being taken on the First Information Report lodged by him is clearly recognised by the provisions. contained in sub.section (2) of section 154, sub- sectiori (2) of section 157 and sub·section (2) (ii) of section 173, it must be pre- sumed that the informant would equally be interested· in !'.eeing that the Magis- trate takes cognizance of the offence and issues process, because that would be culmination of the First Information Report lodged by him. The Court is accordingly of the view that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under sub-section (2) (i) of section 173 decides not to take cogni- zance of the offence and to drop the proc<!edings or takes the view that there is no sufficient grou~d for proceeding against some of the per ,ons mentioned in the First Information Report, the Magistrate must give notice to the infor- mant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time· of consideration of the report, and the difficulty of service of notice on the informant cannot possibly provide any justification for depriving the informant of the opport
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.