Magistrate Not Bound To Notify Informant When Not Proceeding Against 'Non-Chargesheeted' Accused: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a Magistrate is not required to issue a notice to the informant in every case where he is taking cognizance only against the charge-sheeted persons, while leaving out other accused, though named in the FIR, but not charge-sheeted. A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed that issuing notice to the informant, allowing him/her to...
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a Magistrate is not required to issue a notice to the informant in every case where he is taking cognizance only against the charge-sheeted persons, while leaving out other accused, though named in the FIR, but not charge-sheeted.
A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed that issuing notice to the informant, allowing him/her to address the Magistrate regarding non-charge-sheeted persons, would prolong the matter, causing unnecessary delay.
The Court added that an informant will have ample opportunity to place evidence and materials on record during course of trial, based on which they can be arrayed as accused persons under the provisions of Section 319 CrPC.
Notably, the single judge noted that while the Courts have ruled that the informant should generally be allowed to be heard if the Magistrate decides not to summon individuals excluded from the charge sheet, the said requirement is not mandatory.
“…if the Magistrate is satisfied with the police report and sees no ground to summon the un-chargesheeted individuals, they can proceed without necessarily hearing the informant. The informant always has a chance to challenge the final report by means of filing protest petition which shall be heard by the concerned Magistrate. It was also observed that in the case where the persons shown as an accused in the FIR are not charge sheeted, there is always a scope of them being summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., thus, it cannot be said that the right of informant is affected in case notices are not issued to them in those cases where charge sheet has been submitted against a few persons and rest of the persons remain un-chargesheeted,” the court observed in its order.
The Court made these observations while hearing a plea filed by Suman Prajapati, challenging an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, wherein the lower court took cognizance of the offence in a matrimonial cruelty case, summoning only one accused, who was named in the charge sheet, while leaving out five other accused initially named in the FIR.
For context, the charge sheet was filed only against Tripurari Prajapati, while the other five accused (named in the FIR) were exonerated by the police as it submitted a final report qua them.
Before the HC, the informant/applicant argued that while she lodged the FIR, the IO neither informed her about the progress of the investigation nor supplied a copy of the case diary (police report) before its submission to the Court below.
It was her further case that, as per the principles of natural justice, even the Magistrate was bound to give her an opportunity of hearing before deciding whether to proceed against the non-charge-sheeted accused.
Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Bhagwat Singh vs. Commissioner of Police, her counsel argued in the HC that a notice ought to have been issued to her before the Magistrate took cognizance of the charge sheet.
On the other hand, the AGA submitted that at this stage, issuing notice to the informant giving an opportunity to him to address the Magistrate with respect to non-charge sheeted persons would prolong the matter, causing unnecessary delay.
Against the backdrop of these submissions, the single judge, at the outset, observed that whether the Magistrate is bound to summon the informant or complainant before deciding not to summon the un-charge-sheeted persons depends upon the situation and legal proceedings.
It added that while the informant and complainant should be given an opportunity to be heard before Magistrate decides not to summon individuals who have been left out of the charge sheet, it is not mandatory for him to hear the informant if he is satisfied with the police report and sees no ground to summon the un-chargesheeted individuals.
Regarding the mandate of the Supreme Court's Bhagwat Singh judgment, the court noted that while it was held in this case that the informant must be heard when the Magistrate is considering, dropping proceedings or accepting the final report that excludes some accused persons, it is not automatic in every case.
Regarding the merits of the instant case, the Court noted that the stage of Section 319 of CrPC, has not yet been reached in the present case and thus, no prejudice is caused to the informant when the Magistrate has only issued notice to the charge-sheeted persons as in the present case.
“The right of the informant is not in any way affected in case if the Magistrate has taken cognizance only against charge-sheeted persons without issuing notice to the informant with respect to the persons who are named in the FIR but have not been charge-sheeted,” the court added as it dismissed the plea.
Case title – Suman Prajapati vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 101
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 101
