R. N. CHATTERJI versus HAVILDAR KUER SINGH

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 716 · Decided: 19-02-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

71 6 
R. N. CHATI'ERJI 
v. 
HA VILDAR KUER SINGH 
February 19, 1970 
[A. N. RAY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code 1898 Section 156(3) and 190(1) (c)-Scope 
of-Investigating Police Officer submitting a report of insuf!icient evidence 
-If Magistrate cari direct Police to file a charge sheet. 
After investigation °of a complaint filed by the Respondent against the 
Appellant making certain allegations, the Deputy Superintendent of Police 
who carried out the investigation. submitted a repdrt to the Deputy 
Inspector·Gencral under whom the investigation was carried on, to the 
effect that there was insufficient evidence against the Appellant and further-
more that the Respondent's case against the Appellant was false. 
On a 
"protest petition" filed by the Respondent, the Sub-Divisional Magist'rate 
passed an order directing the Police to submit a charge sheet. The High 
Court rejected an application in revision filed against this order 
On appeal to this Court, 
HELD : Allowing the appeal : The provisions of the Criminal Proce-
dure Code do not empower the Magisfrate to ask the police to submit a 
charge-sheet. 
Tf, however, the Magistrate is of opinion that the report 
submitted by the police requires further investigation, the Magistrate may 
order investigation under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code 
Directing a further investigation is entirely different from asking the police 
to submit a charge-sheet. Furthermore, section 190(1) (c) of the Crimi-
nal Procedulre Code empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance of an 
offence notwithstanding a contrary opinion of the police. [718 G] 
Emperor v. Nazir Ahmed 71 I.A. 203; H. N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi 
[19,5] I S.C.R. ll 50; Ahliinandan !ha and Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra, A.LR. 
I 968 S.C. 117: referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
89 of 1967. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 18, 1967 
of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 1965. 
D. Goburdhun, for the appellant. 
The respondent did not appear. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ray, J. 
This is an appeal from the Judgment dated 18 Nov-
ember, 1967 of the High Court at Patna. 
The question for consideration is whether a Sub-Divisional 
llfogistrate could after submission of a final report by the· pohce 
t 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
H 
R. N. CHATTERJI V. H. K. SINGH (Ray, /.) 
717 
direct the police on what is described as a protest petition having-
been filed by the opposite party to submit a charge-sheet. 
The facts in short are that on account of an occurrence at 
the platform of Muzaffarpur Railway Station on 24 March, i 964 
two cases were instituted before the Railway Police. 
One of these was instituted by the appellant against the res-
pondent and the other was instituted by the respondent against 
the appellant. 
The appellant in the case instituted by him alleged that the 
respondent wanted to entrain two of his men in an unauthorised 
way in one of the compartments and the appellant objected to 
the same, whereupon the respondent pulled the appellant on tho 
platform and assaulted him. A charge-sheet was submitted against 
the respondent in that case. 
The present appeal relates to the case instituted by the res-
pondent against the appellant on these allegations. The appellant 
at the material time was a Travelling Ticket Examiner while the· 
respondent was a police havildar. 
The respondent alleged· that 
while he was on duty at the railway platform on the relevant 
date, he found a few smugglers were travelling in a particular 
compartment. The respondent \'"anted to enter the compartment. 
The appellant pushed him back. The appellant and three other 
Ticket Examiners assaulted the respondent. 
The Deputy Superintendent of Railway Police who carried 
on the investigation submitted a report to the Deputy Inspector 
General (C.l.D.), Crime Branch and Railways under whom the-
investigation was carried on, to the effect that th~re was insuffi. 
cient evidence against the appellant and further that the respon-
dent's case against the appellant was a palpably fal~e story about 
the smugglers' and the case was therefore to be· returned a; 
'TR.T. insufficient evidence". 
On 2 April, 1964 the respondent filed a "protest petition" 
against the final report of the police. _On I September, 1964 
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate called for the case diary, super-
vision and progress. report of the police case as pr

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