Chargesheets Submitted By Police Officers Must Have All Necessary Details As Per Section 173(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 12) observed that police officers submitting the police report/chargesheet to the magistrate as per the State Police Manual shall abide by the particulars of Section 173 (2) and directed the officers in charge of every police station across the country to strictly comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. failing which it shall be strictly viewed by the concerned courts i.e., where the chargesheet/police report is filed.

"We are more concerned with Section 173(2) as we have found that the investigating officers while submitting the chargesheet/Police Report do not comply with the requirements of the said provision. Though it is true that the form of the report to be submitted under Section 173(2) 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/Chargesheet are laid down in Section 173, more particularly sub-section (2) thereof.”, the Bench Comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal observed.

While deciding one of the bail applications preferred against the Jharkhand High Court's order denying bail to the accused, though the Supreme Court denied bail to the accused considering that the trial is at fag end, it took a strong note of filing a chargesheet against the accused bereft of details and particulars and laid down the requirements to be followed by Investigating Officer while submitting the police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.

Earlier in the same matter, when the Court was told that a similar practice of filing the chargesheets/police report bereft of details and particulars is also being followed in the States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, the Court had directed the DGPs for the States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh to file a status report about the steps taken/being taken by them for submitting the Chargesheets/Police Reports as per the law.

The Judgment authored by Justice Bela M. Trivedi signified the role and importance of the police report in contemplating the nature of the offence alleged to be committed by the accused that can form the basis for the competent court to take cognizance thereupon i.e., to ascertain whether an offence appears to have been committed by the particular person or persons, or that no offence appears to have been committed.

Therefore, keeping its directions to be in line with Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court directed that the officer in charge of the police stations in every State shall strictly comply with the following directions while submitting the chargesheet/police report, and the non-compliance thereof shall be strictly viewed by the concerned courts in which the Police Reports are submitted.

“(i) A report in the form prescribed by the State Government stating-

(a) the names of the parties;

(b) the nature of the information;

(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;

(e) whether the accused has been arrested;

(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;

(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.

(h) Whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under [sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

(ii) 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 Cr.PC.

(iii) 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.

(iv) 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 12 comply with the details mentioned in the above sub para (i) to (iii).”

Given the above-mentioned particulars, the Supreme Court directed that the “copy of this order be sent to all the Chief Secretaries of the States/UTs as also to Registrar Generals of the High Courts for perusal and compliance.”

Pending Investigation Against Co-Accused Wouldn't Give Right To Default Bail To Accused, SC Clarified

The Supreme Court highlighted the instance when the investigating officer submits a Police Report only qua some of the persons accused named in the FIR, keeping open the investigation qua the other persons accused or when all the documents as required under Section 173(5) are not submitted.

Simply put, the court differentiated between the two scenarios that occur while filing a police report. One is about non-filing of the police report in compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 173 (2), and the other is about the filing of chargesheet/police report qua one accused and non-filing of chargesheet against the another accused in cases where multiple accused are involved.

The Supreme Court referred to its recent decision where it held that “the pendency of the further investigation qua 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 Cr.P.C.”

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sudhanshu Chaudhari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Gunjesh Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Attin Shankar Rastogi, Adv. Mr. A. Vasudeva, Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav, AOR Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, A.A.G. Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Siddharth Thakur, Adv. Mr. Sharanya Sinha, Adv. Mr. Mustafa Sajad, Adv. Ms. Keerti Jaya, Adv. 2 Mr. Adit Jayeshbhai Shah, Adv.

Case Title: DABLU KUJUR VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment