Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
10. The procedure for investigation has been laid down in Section 157 of Cr.P.C. which states inter alia that if from the information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report 622 of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. Such report would be in the nature of preliminary report. As per Section 169, upon the completion of the investigation, if it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, as such officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, and to try the accused or commit him for trial. Section 170 deals with the cases to be sent to Magistrate when evidence is sufficient. The relevant part of Section 170(1) reads as under: – “170. Cases to be sent to Magistrate, when evidence is sufficient.—(1) If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial, or, if the offence is bailable and the accused is able to give security, shall take security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate until otherwise directed.”
11. Section 172 pertains to the Diary of proceedings in investigation, which requires every police officer making an investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. to enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary day by day. Sub-section (IA) of Section 172 requires that the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation under section 161 have to be inserted in the case diary; and sub-section (1B) of Section 172 requires that such diary shall be a volume and duly paginated.
12. We are more concerned with Section 173(2) as we have found that the investigating officers while submitting the chargesheet/Police [2024] 3 S.C.R. Dablu Kujur v. The State of Jharkhand 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.
13. It may be noted that though there are various reports required to be submitted by the police in charge of the police station before, during and after the investigation as contemplated in Chapter XII of Cr.P.C., it is only the report forwarded by the police officer to the Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. that can form the basis for the competent court for taking cognizance thereupon. A chargesheet is nothing but a final report of the police officer under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. It is an opinion or intimation of the investigating officer to the concerned court that on the material collected during the course of investigation, an offence appears to have been committed by the particular person or persons, or that no offence appears to have been committed.
14. When such a Police Report concludes that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person or persons, the Magistrate has three options: (i) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process, (ii) he may direct further investigation under sub-section (3) of Section 156 and require the police to make a further report, or (iii) he may disagree with the report and discharge the accused or drop the proceedings. If such Police Report concludes that no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate again has three options: (i) he may accept the report and drop the proceedings, or (ii) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or (iii) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under sub-section (3) of Section 1561.
15. The issues with regard to the compliance of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., may also arise, when the investigating officer submits Police Report Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police & Anr.; [1985] 3 SCR 942 : (1985) 2 SCC 537 624 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. In such a situation, the question that is often posed before the court is whether such a Police Report could be said to have been submitted in compliance with sub-section (2) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. In this regard, it may be noted that in Satya Narain Musadi & Ors. vs. State of Bihar2, this Court has observed that statutory requirement of the report under Section 173(2) would be complied with if various details prescribed therein are included in the report. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175(5). In Dinesh Dalmia vs. CBI 3, however, it has been held that even if all the documents are not filed, by reason thereof the submission of the chargesheet itself would not be vitiated in law. Such issues often arise when the accused would make his claim for default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and contend that all the documents having not been submitted as required under Section 173(5), or the investigation qua some of the persons having been kept open while submitting Police Report under Section 173(2), the requirements under Section 173(2) could not be said to have been complied with. In this regard, this Court recently held in case of CBI vs. Kapil Wadhwan & Anr.4 that: – “Once from the material produced along with the chargesheet, the court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) is pending or not. 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.” (1980) 3 SCC 152 [2007] 9 SCR 1124 : (2007) 8 SCC 770 [2024] 1 SCR 677 : Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 2024 (@ SLP (Crl) No. 11775 of 2023) [2024] 3 S.C.R. Dablu Kujur v. The State of Jharkhand
16. The above referred discussion has been necessitated for highlighting the significance of the compliance of requirements of the provisions contained in Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C.
17. Ergo, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 173 it is hereby directed that the Report of police officer on the completion of investigation shall contain the following: – (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. 626 (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 comply with the details mentioned in the above sub para (i) to (iii).
18. It is further directed that the officer in charge of the police stations in every State shall strictly comply with the afore-stated directions, and the non-compliance thereof shall be strictly viewed by the concerned courts in which the Police Reports are submitted.
19. 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. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Headnotes prepared by: Result of the case: Vidhi Thaker, Hony. Associate Editor Appeal disposed of (Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)