UMA SHANKAR SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 1132 · Decided: 09-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 1132 
UMA SHANKAR SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. 
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.} No. 5123 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 09, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 19'0(1 )(b) -
Cognizance of offence by magistrate - Held: Magistrate can 
c apply his mind independently and take cognizance of offence 
in exercise of his powers u/s.190(1)(b) even if the report of 
investigating agency in final form exonerates the accused -
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 291134 -Arms Act, 1959 - s.27. 
During election process, an offence took place and 
D an FIR came to be lodged under Sections 302, 291/34 IPC 
and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The matter created a lot 
of turmoil which resulted in transfer of the investigation 
to the C.l.D. The informant challenged the same before 
the High Court. The High Court directed the C.l.D. and the 
E Police, to submit their reports to the concerned 
magistrate within two months from the date of the order 
and upon such report, the magistrate was directed to 
proceed according to law after considering both the 
reports and the case diary. By virtue of the order of the 
F High Court, the investigation was continued, both by the 
C.l.D. and the local police, and the reports in final form 
were filed exonerating the petitioner. However, after 
examining the materials in the case diary, the magistrate 
differed with the final report submitted by the investigating 
G agency and took cognizance of offence against the 
petitioner. 
The petitioner filed an application under Section 227 
Cr.P.C. before the Session Court for discharge from the 
H 
1132 
UMA SHANKAR SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR AND 1133 
ANR. 
case, which was dismissed and a date was fixed for 
A 
framing of charge. The High Court dismissed the petition 
for quashing the order of Session Court. The instant 
special leave petition was filed challenging the order of 
the High Court. 
Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1. The law is well-settled that even if the 
investigating authority is of the view that no case has 
been made out against an accused, the magistrate can 
apply his mind independently to the materials contained 
C 
in the police report and take cognizance thereupon in 
exercise of his powers under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. 
That precisely happened in the instant case. The 
investigation was handed over to the C.l.D. and both the 
C.l.D. and the local police submitted their reports in final o 
form. exonerating the petitioner of the allegations made 
against ~im in the F.l.R. However, the magistrate took 
cognizance of the offence under Section 302/379 IPC and 
Section 27 of the Arms Act against the petitioner. This 
was not a case where the magistrate took recourse to 
E 
any further inquiry but took cognizance on the police 
report itself, which he was entitled to· do under Section 
190(1 )(b) Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, the charges were 
framed against the petitioner which had rendered the 
instant proceedings infructuous. [Paras 15-17) [1140-C-
F 
H; 1141-A) 
India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (19S.9) 
2 SCC 132; Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra (1967) 3 SCR 
668 - relied on. 
Dharampa/ & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2004) 13 
G 
sec 9 - distinguished. 
Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar (1996) 4 SCC 495; 
Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (1998) 7 SCC 149; Kishun 
Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar (1993) 2 SCC 16; Kishori 
H 
1134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201 OJ 10 S.C.R. 
A Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2004) 13 SCC 11 -
referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(1996) 4 sec 495 
referred to 
Para 9 
B 
(1998) 1 sec 149 
referred to 
Paras 10,11, 
12 
(1993) 2 sec 16 
referred to 
Para 11, 13 
(2004) 13 sec 11 
referred to 
Para 12 
c 
(1989) 2 sec 132 
relied on 
Para 12 
(2004) 13 sec 9 
distinguished 
Para 13 
(1967) 3 SCR 668 
relied on 
Para 15 
D 
(2004) 13 SCC 9 
distinguished 
Para 13,14,15 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave 
Petition (Crl) No. 5123 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 12.05.2009 of the High 
E Court of Judicature at Patna in Cr. Misc. No. 18909 of 2007. 
P.S. Mishra, Nagendra Rai, Alok Kumar, Tathagat 
Harshvardhan, Upendera Mishra, Dhrub Jha, Shantanu Sagar, 
Smarhar, Md. Shahid Anwar, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, 
F Chandan Kumar for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. On 17th February, 2000, one 
Vijay Singh, brother of Bharat Singh (deceas
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.