The Aryavarth Express
Agency (New Delhi): The Supreme Court, in a significant judgment, has laid down norms for the contents of chargesheets filed by the police under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and quashed flawed criminal proceedings in three separate appeals.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti observed that in some states, chargesheets merely reproduce the details mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR) without elucidating the evidence and material relied upon. The court emphasized that the chargesheet should contain sufficient details of the facts constituting the offense and relevant evidence to enable the Magistrate to take cognizance and issue process under Sections 190 and 204 of the CrPC.
The bench clarified that the chargesheet need not be a comprehensive thesis of the prosecution case but should reflect a thorough investigation into the alleged offense. It should prima facie show that an offense is established if the material and evidence are proven. The court noted that the requirement of “further evidence” or a “supplementary chargesheet” under Section 173(8) of the CrPC is to make additions to a complete chargesheet and not to rectify a deficient one.
The judgment also discussed the powers of the Magistrate under Sections 190 and 204 of the CrPC, the contents of the charge under Sections 211 to 213 and 218, and the settled legal position on quashing of proceedings. The court observed that the Magistrate should exercise judicial discretion with caution while issuing process and should be mindful of prima facie improbabilities in the case.
In the first appeal, the court quashed the chargesheet and summoning order against the appellants, holding that the offenses under Sections 406, 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were not made out from the facts alleged. The second appeal was allowed, directing the release of the appellant on anticipatory bail in a case under Sections 420 and 120B IPC. The court cautioned against the misuse of criminal proceedings to settle civil disputes.
In the third appeal, the court quashed the summoning order against the appellant and the non-bailable warrants issued against him. It remanded the matter to the Magistrate for re-examination in light of the observations made in the judgment. The court also clarified that non-bailable warrants should not be issued routinely and that the power to grant exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 of the CrPC should be exercised liberally when facts and circumstances require such exemption.
