Allahabad High Court Explains Difference Between Inquiry Undertaken U/S 174 CrPC And Investigation Conducted U/S 157 CrPC

The Allahabad High Court recently explained the difference between the Section 174 CrPC [Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc.] and Section 157 CrPC [Procedure for investigation preliminary inquiry]. 

The Court emphasized that the preparation of inquest under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is in fact in the nature of inquiry, and the same cannot be equated with the investigation contemplated under Section 157 Cr.P.C. which commences after lodging of F.I.R. under Section 154 Cr.P.C.

The Court observed that Section 174 CrPC has a distinct and specific purpose as it deals with an inquiry into whether a person has committed suicide or has been killed in an accident or has died under circumstances raising suspicion that some other person has done some offence.

On the other hand, the Court clarified, under Section 157 Cr.P.C., the Officer in Charge of a Police Station, having reason to suspect the commission of an offence for which he is empowered to investigate, proceeds on the spot for the purpose of investigation.

The Court opined that the inquiry undertaken under Section 174 is limited to the extent of natural or unnatural death, whereas, the condition precedent for recording of FIR is that there must be an information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence. 

Therefore, the Court emphasized that the natured of inquest proceedings under Section 174 CrPC is entirely different from investigation under Section 157 Cr.P.C.

The case in brief 

The case pertains to the death of a boy. On October 26, 2021, the Police was informed about an unidentified dead body laid down near platform no.2, up line to the out post of the G.R.P. Hathras Junction. Police reached there and the inquest was conducted on the body of the deceased the same day and Panchnama was prepared and thereafter the postmortem was also conducted on 26.10.2021, which indicated that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injury.

The report was registered under Section 174(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After conducting Panchnama, postmortem report and detailed accident report were submitted on 26.10.2021.

Subsequently, on October 28, 2021, an FIR in the case was lodged by the brother of deceased, mentioning therein that he had come to Aligarh on 28.10.2021 to take postmortem report and while he was sitting in waiting room of Aligarh Railway Station, he got to know that the deceased was sitting in General Bogie of Unchahar Express, where he met the accused (Gaurav @ Govind). After sometime, there was quarrel at Hathras Railway Station between a boy (deceased) and Gaurav and the boy was thrown from the train by accused.

The investigation was conducted and statement of complainant as well as other witnesses was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and charge sheet was filed against the applicant/accused before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, under Section 302 I.P.C.

The cognizance was taken and charges were framed. Challenging the the charge sheet as well as the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh framing charges against him, the Accused moved to the High Court.

Arguments put forth

The accused argued that the police conducted two investigations in the case, first under Section 174 and thereafter, under Section 157 CrPC. It was argued that charges have been framed in pursuance of the second F.I.R. [lodged at the instance of the borther of the deceased on October 28, 2021], which is not legally sustainable.

Lastly, it was submitted that for the same cause of action, it is the second F.I.R., therefore, proceeding initiated for framing the charge by the court is bad in the eyes of law and the first report (prepared under Section 174 CrPC) should be taken into consideration.

Court's Observations 

At the outset, the Court noted that the information given to the Police about the a dead body found near railwayline does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence and therefore, the said information entered in G.D. cannot be termed as F.I.R.

The Court further said that the inquest was conducted in terms of Section 174 Cr.P.C. and thus, the police had rightly chosen not to lodge any F.I.R. on such information as the police was only conducting an inquiry in order to ascertain whether the death is natural or unnatural.

Consequently, the Court noted that in the present case, the information for cognizable offence was given by the informant on October 28, 2021 and thereafter, the police started investigation because act of commission of murder was disclosed in the F.I.R.

"...the F.I.R. lodged on 28.10.2021 for offence which is cognizable, therefore, investigation was conducted under Section 157 Cr.P.C. The first report dated 26.10.2021 was an information tendered by Portal/Pointsman, Mukesh Kumar, the railway authority regarding an unknown dead body which was lying near railway line and the same cannot be termed as F.I.R. The preparation of inquest report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. regarding death of deceased, postmortem examination and detailed accident report, was in fact, in the nature of inquiry and it cannot be equated with investigation contemplated under Section 157 Cr.P.C.," the Court remarked.

Therefore, noting that the charges have been framed after collecting material on record and court below had no option but to frame the charge, the Court dismissed the revision plea.

Case title - Gaurav @ Govind v. State of U.P. and Another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 380

Click Here To Read/Download Order