LexDHARMATMA SINGH versus HARMINDER SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 6 S.C.R. 355 DHARMATMA SINGH v. HARMINDER SINGH & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1126 of 2011) MAY 10, 2011 [R.V. RAVE~NpRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 173(2), (8) and 482 - Report of police officer on completion of investigation A B - Cognizance of offence by the Magistrate - Scope of - After C investigation, police filed two challans before the Judicial Magistrate, one against the appellant and others for commission of offences u/ss. 452, 323, 326, 506 rw s. 34 /PC and other cha/Ian against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and others for commission of offences u/ss. 342, 323, 324, 148 /PC - D After further investigation, further report made by Superintendent of Police stating that respondent Nd. 1 caused injuries to the appellant and others in self-defence, thus, the cross-case against the respondent No. 1 to be cancelled - Said report submitted to Additional Director General of Police E who opined that the decision of the case should be left to the Court - However, respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an application uls. 482 in the High Court praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them - Application allowed by the High Court - On appeal, held: The said further report F made by Superintendent of Police has to be forwarded to the Magistrate and it was for the Magistrate to apply judicial mind to the facts stated in the reports submitted under sub-sections (2) and (8) of s.173, and to form an opinion whether to take or not to take cognizance against respondent No. 1 after G considering the objections, if any, of the appellant - The Magistrate did not apply his mind to the merits of the reports filed u/s. 173 - Exercise of power by the High Court uls. 482 was at an interlocutory stage and was not warranted, thus, order passed by the High Court is set aside. H 355 356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 6 S.C.R. A An F.l.R. was registered against the appellant under Sections 452, 324, 323, 506, 326 read with Section 34 IPC on information furnished by respondent No.1. The appellant gave a different version of the incident to the police. After investigation, the police filed two challans s before the Judicial Magistrate, one against the appellant, his father 'MS' and 'BS' that they had committed offences under Sections 452, 323, 326, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and other against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and others that they had committed offences under Sections 342, c 323, 324, 148 IPC. On an application by the prosecution before the Judicial Magistrate, the prosecution was granted permission for further investigation. The further investigation was carried out. The Superintendent of Police submitted the report that respondent No.1 gave 0 some injuries to the appellant and others for his self- defence and thus, no proceedings could be initiated against respondent N"o.1 and the cross case registered against respondent No.1 should be cancelled. The said report was submitted to the Additional Director General of Police who opined that as the challans had already E been filed against the respondents in the cross-case, the decision of the case should be left to the Court. However, before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate could apply its mind and take a decision on the original challan against respondents No. 1 and 2 and on the report of further F investigation recommending dropping of the criminal proceedings against them, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court praying for quashing of DOR and the challan filed against them by the police in the Court of Judicial G Magistrate. The High Court quashed the criminal , proceedings initiated pursuant to the DOR. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court H DHARMATMA SINGH v. HARMINDER SINGH & ORS. 357 HELD: 1.1. A reading of provisions of sub-section (2) A of Section 173, Cr.P.C. would show that as soon as the investigation is completed, the officer in charge of ·the police station is required to forward the police report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence stating inter a/ia whether an offence appears to B have been committed and if so, by whom. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 further provides that where upon further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall also for
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.