{"id":317142,"date":"2024-03-15T15:00:43","date_gmt":"2024-03-15T09:30:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=317142"},"modified":"2024-03-15T15:01:23","modified_gmt":"2024-03-15T09:31:23","slug":"non-compliance-of-section-1732-raises-many-legal-issues-supreme-court-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/15\/non-compliance-of-section-1732-raises-many-legal-issues-supreme-court-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Non-compliance of Section 173(2) of CrPC raises many legal issues\u2019; SC discusses police report procedure and contents in detail"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In a criminal appeal against Jharkhand High Court’s decision, dismissing the bail application of the accused for offences under Sections 302<\/a>, 120-B<\/a> read with Section 34<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (‘IPC’) and Section 25(1-B) A<\/a>, 26<\/a>, 27<\/a> and 35<\/a> of the Arms Act, 1959<\/a>, the Division Bench of Bela M. Trivedi*<\/span> and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. refused to release the accused on bail considering that the trial was at the fag end and almost all the witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The Court also discussed the contents of the police report under Section 173(2)<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Vide order dated 17-07-2023, the Court noted that the charge sheet filed against the accused was bereft of details and particulars and the Director General of Police (‘DGP’), State of Jharkhand was directed to examine whether the said charge sheet was in accordance with law, and if such chargesheets were being filed, appropriate steps should be taken in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a> (‘CrPC’). A similar scenario of charge sheets bereft of details and particulars being filed was noted in the State of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, and the DGPs concerned were directed to file their respective reports on the steps taken by them.<\/p>\n

In compliance with the said order, the affidavits were filed on behalf of the States concerned regarding the steps taken or being taken by them for submitting the charge sheets\/police reports in accordance with law. The Court noted the practice of Investigating Officers not complying with the requirements of Section 173(2)<\/a> of the CrPC<\/a> while submitting the chargesheet\/police report.<\/p>\n

The Court said that the police report under Section 173(2)<\/a> of the CrPC<\/a> is a very important piece of document for the prosecution, the defence and the Court. The Court opined that it is incumbent on the part of the Investigating Officer to strictly comply with the requirements of Section 173(2), as non-compliance thereof gives rise to many legal issues in the Court of law.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that Section 173<\/a> of the CrPC<\/a> provides for the ‘report of police officer on completion of investigation’. The Court perused Section 157<\/a> of the CrPC<\/a> which states inter alia that if from the information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender.<\/p>\n

Regarding the form of the report and the mandatory requirements, the Court said that the form of the report under Section 173(2)<\/a> of the CrPC<\/a> has to be prescribed by the State Government and each State Government has its own Police Manual to be followed by the police officers while discharging their duty, the mandatory requirements required to be complied with by such officers in the police report\/ charge sheet are laid down in Section 173(2)<\/a> of the CrPC<\/a>. The Court also explained that when the investigating officer submits police report only regarding some of the accused persons named in the FIR, keeping open the investigation regarding the other accused persons, or when all the documents as required under Section 173(5) are not submitted, the issues of non-compliance of Section 173(2)<\/a> of the CrPC<\/a>, may also arise and the question that whether such a police report could be said to have been submitted in compliance with Section 173(2)<\/a> of the CrPC<\/a> is raised before the Court. In this regard, the Court referred to Satya Narain Musadi<\/span> v. State of Bihar<\/span>, (1980) 3 SCC 152<\/a>, wherein it was said that statutory requirement of the report under Section 173(2) would be complied with if various details prescribed therein are included in the report and it is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175(5). The Court also referred to CBI<\/span> v. Kapil Wadhwan<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a>, wherein it was laid down that the pendency of the further investigation regarding the other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate the chargesheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete chargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) of the CrPC.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court gave following requisites for the police report on the completion of investigation:<\/p>\n

1. A report in the form prescribed by the State Government stating-<\/p>\n

(a) the names of the parties;<\/p>\n

(b) the nature of the information;<\/p>\n

(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;<\/p>\n

(e) whether the accused has been arrested;<\/p>\n

(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;<\/p>\n

(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170.<\/p>\n

(h) Whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under [Sections 376<\/a>, 376-A<\/a>, 376-AB<\/a>, 376-B<\/a>, 376-C<\/a>, 376-D<\/a>, 376-DA<\/a>, 376-DB<\/a>] or Section 376-E<\/a> of the IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

2. If upon the completion of investigation, there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, the Police officer in charge shall clearly state in the Report about the compliance of Section 169<\/a> of the CrPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

3. When the report in respect of a case to which Section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report, all the documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation; and the statements recorded under Section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.<\/p>\n

4. In case of further investigation, the Police officer in charge shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed and shall also comply with the details mentioned above.<\/p>\n

The Court directed that the officer in charge of the police stations in every State shall strictly comply with the said directions, and the non-compliance thereof shall be strictly viewed by the Courts concerned in which the police reports are submitted.<\/p>\n

In the matter at hand, the Court noted that the trial was at the fag end and almost all the witnesses were examined by the prosecution except one witness, therefore, the Court refused to release the accused on bail.<\/p>\n

[Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 269<\/a>, Decided on: 12-03-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment Authored by: Justice Bela M. Trivedi<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice Bela Madhurya Trivedi<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n