Victim/ Informant Must Be Communicated About Deletion Of Names From Array Of Accused In Final Report: Kerala High Court

Allowing the criminal revision case, Justice K Babu stated thus, “The learned Magistrate shall issue notice to the informant / victim regarding the finding of the Investigating Officer that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against some of the accused.”

In this case, while dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by an accused, the Court observed that the Police did not notify informant/victim under Section 157 (2) of the CrPC regarding the removal some of the from the array of accused in the final report.

The High Court relying upon Bhagwant Singh v Commissioner of Police and another (1985) and Anil Kumar v Latha Mohan and Others (2021) stated that notice should have been given to the informant before removing the accused from the party array. The Court thus directed the registration of the present Criminal Revision Petition.

The Court noted that nine persons were initially arrayed as accused in the FIR. After investigation under Section 157 of CrPC, the final report was filed arraying only five of those originally named as accused, while four individuals were removed from the array of accused. Additionally, the investigating officer added one more person as the accused.

It was submitted before the Court that the Investigating Officer on investigating as per Section 157 of CrPC should have notified the informant/victim that there would be no investigation against the persons deleted from the array of accused and that no offences have been revealed against them.

The Court thus said that the investigating officer should have informed the informant/victim regarding the removal of persons from array of accused in the final report, who were initially named as accused in the FIR.

“As per Section 157(2) of Cr.P.C, if it appears to the Officer in Charge of a Police Station that there is no sufficient ground for entering into an investigation, he shall forthwith notify the said fact to the informant / victim.”

Further, the Court stated that the Magistrate taking cognizance of offences in the final report ought to have issued notice to the informant /victim regarding this.

Relying upon Bhagwant Singh (supra) and Anil Kumar (supra), the Court said, “The Supreme Court held that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under Section 173(2) decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceedings or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the FIR, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report.

In the facts of the case, the Court noted that the Magistrate took cognizance of offences only against five persons and did not proceed against four persons who were arraigned as accused initially in the FIR without issuing notice and informing the informant/victim. “There is no justification for depriving the informant of the opportunity to be heard at the time when the report was considered by the Magistrate”, added the Court

As such, the Court directed the Magistrate to issue notice to the informant/victim on the Investigating Officer's finding that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against some of the accused who were initially arraigned as accused in the FIR and that they are removed from the party array.

Counsel for Respondents: Advocates M R Sarin, M R Sasinth, P Santhoshkumar, Parvathi Krishna, Saumya P S

Case Number: CRL.RC NO. 2 OF 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 579

Click here to Read/Download Order