GANGADHAR JANARDAN MHATRE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 772 · Decided: 28-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
GANGADHAR JANARDAN MHATRE 
v. 
STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 
[ARJJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Section 190(1)-Cognizance of offences-Magistrate's power to take-
Notice·to informant-Necessity of- Held: Where the Magistrate decides not 
to take cognizance of an offence on a police report under S. 173(2)(i) and 
decides to drop the proceedings against some of the accused, the Magistrate 
has to give notice to the informant and provide an opportunity to be heard 
_ at the time of consideration of the report-The said right is conferred on the 
informant and none else-If the informant is not aware as to when the matter 
D 
is to be considered, he cannot be faulted, even if protest petition in reply to 
the notice issued by the police has been filed belatedly. 
E 
F 
G 
Sections 169,' 173(2), 190(1), 200 and 202-Cognizance of offences-
Magistrate's power to take-Police report under S. 173(2)(i) made out no 
case against the accused-Effect of-Held: The Magistrate can ignore the 
conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer and independently apply 
his mind to the facts emerging ji·om the investigation and take cognizance 
of the case and, if he thinks fit, exercise his powers under S. 190(l)(b)-The 
Magistrate is not bound to follow the procedure laid down in Ss. 200 and 
202 for taking cognizance of a case under S. 190(l)(a) though it is open to 
him to act under Ss.200 or 202 also. 
Section 154-Jnformation in cognizable cases-Failure of police to take 
action-Remedies available to the compla_inant-Held: Complainant is given 
the power under S. 190 rlw S. 200 to lay the complaint before the Magistrate 
havingjurisdiction to take cognizance of the case-Thereupon, the MagistratP-
is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226-Writ petition-Maintainability of-Informant filed a writ 
H 
petition seeking transfer of investigation from State CID to any other 
772 
G.J. MHATRE v. STATE 
773 
impartial investigating agency-Informant levelled serious allegations about 
A 
the competence and fairness of not only the investigating officers 
but also some of the judicial officers-High Court dismissed the writ 
petition-Correctness of-Held: The Magistrate is empowered to take 
cognizance of a case under S. 190(/)(b) Cr.P.C. even if the police report has 
made out no case against the accused-Informant has power under S. 190 
B 
r/w S. 200 Cr.P.C. to lay the complaint before the Magistrate even if police 
has failed to take action-Further, informant is also entitled to a notice when 
the Magistrate decides to drop the proceedings against the accused on the 
basis of the police report-Therefore, without availing the remedies under 
the Cr.P.C., the informant could not have approached the High Court by 
filing a writ application-Hence, writ application rightly dismissed. 
C 
Words & Phrases: 
"Charge sheet" and "final report"-:-Meaning of-In the context of Ss. 
169, 170 and 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
The appellant's grievance primarily was that respondent Nos. 2 to 
9 had allegedly killed his brother and caused grievous injuries to his 
nephew. The appellant in this regard registered the first information 
report. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court praying 
for transfer of the ihvestigation from ~ate CID to any other impartial· 
investigating agency. The High Court noted that the case had been 
committed under the orders passed by the Magistrate and was pending 
in the Court of Sessions. The High Court, therefore, was of the view that 
when the case was· pending before the Sessions Court, there was no 
question of transferring investigation to some other agency. The High 
Court also noticed that a charge sheet was also filed against the appellant. 
In that view of the matter the High Court found that there was no scope 
for entertaining the ~rievances as raised by the appellant. 
Originally, the investigating agency had filed a petition for closing 
the matter pursuant to the FIR lodged by the appellant. The Judicial 
Magistrate, First Class, had passed orders accepting the prayer made 
by the Police CommissiQner to release respondents Nos. 2 to 9. This 
order was assailed in revision before the Additional Sessions Judge who 
D 
E 
F 
G 
set aside the aforesaid order. Direction was given to the Magistrate to 
refer the matter to the concerned Investigating

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.