SHARIF AHMED AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

23. In K. Veeraswami (supra), K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. pronounced the judgment for himself and M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as His Lordship then was) on the question of contents of the chargesheet and observed: [2024] 6 S.C.R.  Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another “75. In the view that we have taken as to the nature of the offence created under clause (e), it may not be necessary to examine the contention relating to ingredient of the offence. But since the legality of the charge-sheet has been impeached, we will deal with that contention also. Counsel laid great emphasis on the expression “for which he cannot satisfactorily account” used in clause (e) of Section 5(1) of the Act. He argued that that term means that the public servant is entitled to an opportunity before the Investigating Officer to explain the alleged disproportionality between assets and the known sources of income. The Investigating Officer is required to consider his explanation and the charge-sheet filed by him must contain such averment. The failure to mention that requirement would vitiate the charge-sheet and renders it invalid. This submission, if we may say so, completely overlooks the powers of the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer is only required to collect material to find out whether the offence alleged appears to have been committed. In the course of the investigation, he may examine the accused. He may seek his clarification and if necessary he may cross check with him about his known sources of income and assets possessed by him. Indeed, fair investigation requires as rightly stated by Mr A.D. Giri, learned Solicitor General, that the accused should not be kept in darkness. He should be taken into confidence if he is willing to cooperate. But to state that after collection of all material the Investigating Officer must give an opportunity to the accused and call upon him to account for the excess of the assets over the known sources of income and then decide whether the accounting is satisfactory or not, would be elevating the Investigating Officer to the position of an enquiry officer or a judge. The Investigating Officer is not holding an enquiry against the conduct of the public servant or determining the disputed issues regarding the disproportionality between the assets and the income of the accused. He just collects material from all sides and prepares a report which he files in the court as charge-sheet.” 112 The latter portion of the aforesaid paragraph, referring to the details of the offence and the requirement for them to be proved in order to bring home the guilt of the accused at the later stage (the stage of trial) by adducing acceptable evidence, has to be understood in the context that the chargesheet need not elaborately evaluate the evidence, as the process of evaluation is a matter of trial. This does not mean that the chargesheet should not disclose or refer to the facts as to meet the requirements of Section 173(2) of the Code, and the mandate of the State rules. Further, the earlier portion of the same paragraph, while referring to the opinion of the investigating officer, does so to demonstrate the significance of the opinion of the investigating officer at this stage. However, this does not preclude the Magistrate from exercising her powers in adopting an approach independent from such opinion, as has been held by this Court in Bhagwant Singh (supra) and Minu Kumari (supra).

24. It is the police report which would enable the Magistrate to decide a course of action from the options available to him. The details of the offence and investigation are not supposed to be a comprehensive thesis of the prosecution case, but at the same time, must reflect a thorough investigation into the alleged offence. It is on the basis of this record that the court can take effective cognisance of the offence and proceed to issue process in terms of Section 190(1)(b) and Section 204 of the Code. In case of doubt or debate, or if no offence is made out, it is open to the Magistrate to exercise other options which are available to him.

25. In support of our reasoning, we would refer to the very next paragraph in the judgment of Shetty, J. in K. Veeraswami (supra) which reads as under: “76. The charge-sheet is nothing but a final report of police officer under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. The Section 173(2) provides that on completion of the investigation the police officer investigating into a cognizable offence shall submit a report. The report must be in the form prescribed by the State Government and stating therein (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) [2024] 6 S.C.R.  Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he had been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; and (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170. As observed by this Court in Satya Narain Musadi v. State of Bihar that the statutory requirement of the report under Section 173(2) would be complied with if the various details prescribed therein are included in the report. This report is an intimation to the magistrate that upon investigation into a cognizable offence the Investigating Officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into the offence and the necessary information is being sent to the court. In fact, the report under Section 173(2) purports to be an opinion of the Investigating Officer that as far as he is concerned he has been able to procure sufficient material for the trial of the accused by the court. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175(5). Nothing more need be stated in the report of the Investigating Officer. It is also not necessary that all the details of the offence must be stated. The details of the offence are required to be proved to bring home the guilt to the accused at a later stage i.e. in the course of the trial of the case by adducing acceptable evidence. This paragraph examines the contents of the chargesheet and on elaboration of the same holds that it is in accordance with the terms of Section 173(2) of the Code as well as the provisions of the penal enactment. In furtherance of this, reference is made to Satya Narain Musadi and Others v. State of Bihar20, in stating that the chargesheet should comply with the statutory requirements, and the various details prescribed therein should be included in the report.

26. The object and purpose of the police investigation is manyfold. It includes the need to ensure transparent and free investigation to ascertain the facts, examine whether or not an offence is committed, (1980) 3 SCC 152 114 identify the offender if an offence is committed, and to lay before the court the evidence which has been collected, the truth and correctness of which is thereupon decided by the court.

27. In H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi21, this Court notes that the process of investigation generally consists of: 1) proceeding to the concerned spot, 2) ascertainment of facts and circumstances, 3) discovery and arrest, 4) collection of evidence which includes examination of various persons, search of places and seizure of things, and 5) formation of an opinion on whether an offence is made out, and filing the chargesheet accordingly. The formation of opinion is therefore the culmination of several stages that an investigation goes through. This Court in its decision in Abhinandan Jha and Others v. Dinesh Mishra22 states that the submission of the chargesheet or the final report is dependent on the nature of opinion formed, which is the final step in the investigation.

28. The final report has to be prepared with these aspects in mind and should show with sufficient particularity and clarity, the contravention of the law which is alleged. When the report complies with the said requirements, the court concerned should apply its mind whether or not to take cognisance and also proceed by issuing summons to the accused. While doing so, the court will take into account the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code and the documents placed on record by the investigating officer.

29. In case of any doubts or ambiguity arising in ascertaining the facts and evidence, the Magistrate can, before taking cognisance, call upon the investigating officer to clarify and give better particulars, order further investigation, or even record statements in terms of Section 202 of the Code.

30. Our attention has been drawn to the format prescribed for the State of Uttar Pradesh, which by column 16 requires the investigating officer to state brief facts of the case. In addition, the State of Uttar Pradesh has issued a circular dated 19.09.2023, which refers to an earlier circular bearing No. 59 of 2016 dated 20.10.2016, and states [1955] 1 SCR 1150 : (1954) 2 SCC 934 [1967] 3 SCR 668 : AIR 1968 SC 117 [2024] 6 S.C.R.  Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another that the investigation provisions contained in the Code and the police regulations with reference to Section 173 of the Code are not being consistently complied with and followed by the investigating officers and the supervising officers. The need to provide lead details of the offence in the chargesheet is mandatory as it is in accord with paragraph 122 of the police regulations. Similar directions were issued on 09.09.2022 following the direction of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad that brief narration of the material collected during investigation, which forms the opinion of the investigating officer, should be mentioned in the chargesheet.

31. Therefore, the investigating officer must make clear and complete entries of all columns in the chargesheet so that the court can clearly understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on the file. Statements under Section 161 of the Code and related documents have to be enclosed with the list of witnesses. The role played by the accused in the crime should be separately and clearly mentioned in the chargesheet, for each of the accused persons. PART II

32. As we turn to the second part of our judgment, it would be appropriate to lead our decision in each case with a brief overview of its pertinent facts: Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1074/2017 The appellants have been involved in a drawn-out litigation with several parties over the ownership of Property No. 80-A, 23,072 sq. ft., forming a part of Khasra no. 1016/647 and 645, situated within Chandrawli/Shahdara, now in Abadi, at Circular Road, Shahdara, Delhi- 110032.23 Appellant No.2 – Sharif Ahmad and Appellant No.3 – Anwar Ahmad (since deceased), purchased a part in the subject property on behalf of their partnership firm Dream Land & Co., while Appellant No.1 – Vakil Ahmad (since deceased) had done so in his individual capacity. “subject property”, for short. 116 To avoid prolixity, we would refrain from setting out the facts of the litigation in detail. The challenge before us relates to the First Information Report No. 108/2016 dated 23.05.2016, filed by Respondent No.2/complainant – Mohd. Iqbal, under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC at police station Hafizpur, Hapur, U.P. against the appellants. The FIR stated that the appellants had agreed to sell the subject property to Respondent No. 2 and had received part payment for the registry of the subject property. However, the appellants did not register the property and also failed to refund the concerned amount to Respondent No. 2. The Police recorded the statements of Respondent No.2, and the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code. According to these statements, the appellants had refused to refund the amount paid by Respondent No. 2 despite repeated requests to do the same. A complaint dated 03.09.2016 was filed against Respondent No. 2 at Police Station Tis Hazari by relatives of the appellants on account of receiving threats to their life. The appellants challenged FIR No. 108/2016 in W.P. (Cr.) No.20221/2016 before the Allahabad High Court and sought quashing of the proceedings. By an order dated 15.09.2016, the High Court stayed the arrest of the appellant until filing of the chargesheet. On 24.10.2016, a chargesheet was filed against the appellants under Sections 405 and 506 IPC. The appellants approached the Allahabad High Court in Cr. M.A. No. 960/2017 seeking the quashing of the chargesheet and of proceedings in Case No. 410/2016. The appellants submitted that the chargesheet is vague, filed without proper investigation, and fails to make out any offence. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the application for quashing of the chargesheet through the impugned order dated 12.01.2017. [2024] 6 S.C.R.  Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Hence, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

33. The FIR as registered, on the question of intimidation states that on 19.03.2016 the appellants had flatly refused to refund the money and had told Respondent No. 2 that they can do whatever they want. They had threatened the entire family of the complainant.

34. The chargesheet submitted by the investigating officer in the present case, under column 16 referring to the facts of the case, reads as under: “Sir, the above said case was got registered by the complainant Shri Iqbal on 23/5/16 at this police station, the investigation of which handed over to me S.I., the investigation of which done by me S.I. and from all the investigation till now, statement of the complainant, statement of the witnesses and inspection of place of occurrence, the deal of plot measuring 2600 which is at behind Sadar Police Station was finalized by the accused persons with the complainant and his partner Surender Sharma for 4 crore, for which by not getting executed the registry of the same at the time of the complainant and after receiving a sum of Rs. 1 crore of his partner Surender Sharma as earnest money, selling of plot to Kusum Jain and D.K. Jain, by not refunding a sum of Rs. 1 crore of the complainant and his partner, grabbing by doing breach of trust, making pretexts on demanding again and again and the threat to kill, hence the offence under section 406, 506 I.P.C. is thoroughly proved upon the accused persons Sharif Ahmed, Anwar Ahmed, Vakil Ahmed, Aadil Ahmed, the occurrence of section 420 I.P.C. is not found, hence the challan of the accused persons, by charge sheet No. 153/16 is filled in the court, it is prayed that punishment may be given by calling the proof.”

35. A reading thereof would indicate that it refers to the complaint made by Respondent No. 2 – Iqbal on 23.05.2016 relating to the deal of a plot in respect of which part consideration was paid as earnest money. But thereafter, the appellants had sold the plot and were not refunding the earnest money and by doing so have committed breach of trust under Section 406 of the IPC. It also refers to the alleged pretexts being made by the appellants on money being demanded 118 and a threat to kill being extended. It is also recorded that an offence under Section 506 has been proved to have been committed. At the same time, the chargesheet states that no offence under Section 420 of the IPC is found to have been committed.

36. An offence under Section 406 of the IPC requires entrustment, which carries the implication that a person handing over any property or on whose behalf the property is handed over, continues to be the owner of the said property. Further, the person handing over the property must have confidence in the person taking the property to create a fiduciary relationship between them. A normal transaction of sale or exchange of money/consideration does not amount to entrustment.24 Clearly, the charge/offence of Section 406 IPC is not even remotely made out.

37. The chargesheet states that the offence under Section 420 is not made out. The offence of cheating under Section 415 of the IPC requires dishonest inducement, delivering of a property as a result of the inducement, and damage or harm to the person so induced. The offence of cheating is established when the dishonest intention exists at the time when the contract or agreement is entered, for the essential ingredient of the offence of cheating consists of fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him to deliver any property, to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he had not been deceived. As per the investigating officer, no fraudulent and dishonest inducement is made out or established at the time when the agreement was entered.

38. An offence of criminal intimidation arises when the accused intendeds to cause alarm to the victim, though it does not matter whether the victim is alarmed or not. The intention of the accused to cause alarm must be established by bringing evidence on record. The word ‘intimidate’ means to make timid or fearful, especially: to compel or deter by or as if by threats.25 The threat communicated or uttered by the person named in the chargesheet as an accused, should be uttered and communicated by the said person to threaten See Section 405 of the IPC and judgments of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal Nathalal AIR 1968 SC 700; Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006) 6 SCC 736; Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU(X), New Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta (1996) 5 SCC 591 “intimidate”. Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2024. [2024] 6 S.C.R.  Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another the victim for the purpose of influencing her mind. The word ‘threat’ refers to the intent to inflict punishment, loss or pain on the other. Injury involves doing an illegal act.

39. This Court in Manik Taneja and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another26, had referred to Section 506 which prescribes punishment for the offence of ‘criminal intimidation’ as defined in Section 503 of the IPC, to observe that the offence under Section 503 requires that there must be an act of threating another person with causing an injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested. This threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or omit to do an act which he is entitled to do. Mere expression of any words without any intent to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring home an offence under Section 506 of the IPC. The material and evidence must be placed on record to show that the threat was made with an intent to cause alarm to the complainant, or to cause them to do, or omit to do an act. Considering the statutory mandate, offence under Section 506 is not shown even if we accept the allegation as correct.

40. In view of the aforesaid position, we quash the chargesheet and the summoning order. The appellants are discharged. We clarify that the observations made above will have no bearing on the civil proceedings, if any, already initiated or which may be initiated in future by the respondent/complainant. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5419/2022 On 26.06.2019 the complainant – Wakeel Ahmad filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, alleging that the accused persons, including the appellant – Imran, routinely take money on the pretext of bainama of property, and subsequently deny entering into such agreement and receiving any money. The court allowed the said complaint and ordered the concerned Police Station to register the complaint under Sections 420 and 120B IPC. FIR No. 519/2019 dated [2015] 1 SCR 156 : (2015) 7 SCC 423 120 26.07.2019 was registered at Police Station Chandpur, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh. The complainant also stated that the accused persons had threatened the complainant against pursuing legal action against them. By an order dated 19.09.2019, the High Court partly allowed the appellant’s anticipatory bail application and directed the police not to arrest the appellant till the submission of the chargesheet. Chargesheet No. 582/2019 dated 18.10.2019 was filed, submitting that charges under Sections 420 and 120B IPC are established. The chargesheet lists the details of the accused as mentioned in the FIR and the relevant column relating to brief facts in the chargesheet reads: “Requesting to the Hon’ble Court is that on 28.07.2019 the Hon’ble Court ordered under section 156(3) Cr. P.C. for registering a FIR No. 519/2019 under the section of 420, 120B IPC against 1. Ziyauddin S/o Gyasudding aged about 70 years 2. Zamaluddin S/o Gyasuddin aged about 65 years 3. Kamaluddin S/o Gyasuddin aged about 50 years 4. Rahisuddin S/o. Unknown 5. Imran aged about 36 years S/o Zamaluddin 6. Kahsif S/o Zamaluddin aged about 31 all are residence of Mohalla Ktarmal, kasba Chandpur, Chanpur, Bijnor, UP. the crime under section 420, 120B IPC is proved against the Ziyauddin S/o Gyasudding, Zamaluddin S/o Gyasuddin, Kamaluddin S/o Gyasuddin, Rahisuddin S/o Unknown, Imran S/o Zamaluddin, Kahsif S/o Zamaluddin. [2024] 6 S.C.R.  Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Hence, filing this charge sheet before the Hon’ble court and requesting to this Hon’ble court to punish the all the accused.” By an order dated 10.05.2021, the Allahabad High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to the appellant till 03.01.2022, in terms of the conditions mentioned in the order, and observed that the appellant herein may approach the High Court again if so advised, in case of a change in circumstances. On 23.03.2022, Allahabad High Court dismissed the Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.2235/2022 filed by the appellant, on the grounds of non-bailable warrants having been issued against the appellant and the chargesheet having been filed. Hence, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

41. We have already referred to the facts and also to the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC. The assertions made in the FIR allege that the accused are frauds who have taken bainama (earnest money on the property), but thereafter are making excuses. The complainant had visited the accused at their house who had then threatened them to implicate them in false cases. They denied having received the money.

42. We allow the present appeal and direct that in the event of the appellant being arrested, he shall be released on bail by the arresting officer/investigating officer/trial court on the terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court.

43. However, what is surprising and a matter of concern in the present case, is that the police had initially rightly not registered the FIR, which had prompted the complainant to approach the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandpur, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh, alleging that he is an honest and respected person in the society and is well established in business, while the accused are fraudulent individuals. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had subsequently ordered for the FIR to be registered on the basis of the written complaint.

44. We would also like to emphasise on the need for a Magistrate to be cautious in examining whether the facts of the case disclose a civil or a criminal wrong. Attempts at initiating vexatious criminal 122 proceedings should be thwarted early on, as a summoning order, or even a direction to register an FIR, has grave consequences for setting the criminal proceedings in motion.27 Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims which do not involve any criminal offence, by way of applying pressure through criminal prosecution, should be deprecated and discouraged.28 Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9482/2021 The complainant and Respondent No. 2 herein – Rajesh Wangvelu made a written complaint to the Station Officer, Police Station Aliganj, Lucknow, alleging that on 23.12.2019 at about 12:15 p.m. two officers of the National Research Laboratory for Conservation of Cultural Property, Lucknow29, namely, Bachhan Singh Rawat, Security Officer and Mahendra Kumar, Division Clerk/Caretaker had attacked him with a helmet and lathi, and had threatened to kill him. At about 1:12 p.m. FIR No. 556/2019 dated 23.12.2019 was registered against Bachhan Singh Rawat and Mahendra Kumar under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC. A statement under Section 161 of the Code was also recorded, where Rajesh Wangvelu stated that he was discriminated against for belonging to a different State. He had done nothing wrong and did not allow his subordinates to do anything wrong, for which reason Bachhan Singh Rawat and Mahender Kumar remained angry with him. He added in his statement that the appellant – Manager Singh was also present during this altercation. He had abused him and stated – “maaro sale ko, bahut imandaar banta hai” i.e., “hit him, he wants to be too honest”. Bachhan Singh Rawat and Mahendra Kumar had hit him till he fainted. When he regained consciousness, they had left the place. Manager Singh, as the Director General of the NRLC, claims that he had noticed several discrepancies and Deepak Gaba and Others v. State of U.P. and Another, (2023) 3 SCC 423 Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006) 6 SCC 736 “NRLC”, for short. [2024] 6 S.C.R.  Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another administrative errors committed by Rajesh Wangvelu, who was working as the Library and Information Officer. After issuing show-cause notices to Rajesh Wangvelu and considering his response, the Ministry of Culture issued a letter dated 02.08.2019, under the signature of appellant, indicating that Rajesh Wangvelu prima facie appeared to have committed temporary embezzlement of Rs. 38,338/- and for which action should be taken. A decision to shift the library was also confirmed by a committee, to which Rajesh Wangvelu had expressed his displeasure. On the day of shifting, i.e. 23.12.2019, a physical altercation occurred between Rajesh Wangvelu and the officers Bachhan Singh Rawat and Mahendra Kumar. Manager Singh has relied upon written communication of Bachhan Singh Rawat in which he has stated that on 23.12.2019 at about 12:00 noon, he was informed by Mahendra Kumar, that Rajesh Wangvelu had taken some items in his bag without the gate pass. Information in this regard had been given to Manager Singh and the Vigilance Officer. When Bachhan Singh Rawat had tried to frisk Rajesh Wangvelu, he had, in presence of another staff member Dr. Neeta Nigam, threatened Bachhan Singh Rawat and Mahendra Kumar with dire consequences and had sprayed chemical on their faces. Rajesh Wangvelu had assaulted them and thereupon had run away from the spot. On 23.12.2019 Manager Singh had accordingly written a letter to the Station Officer of Aliganj Police Station, informing him of the incident. Manager Singh is also relying on the communication dated 26.12.2019 written by him to the Director General of Police, Lucknow, and the communication dated 06.01.2020 by the appellant Manager Singh to the sub-inspector, and inquiry officer Police Station Aliganj. Rajesh Wangvelu was examined at 01:30 p.m., and his medical legal report dated 23.12.2019 refers to six injuries which have been found to be caused by a hard and blunt object. The injuries were simple. Rajesh Wangvelu, 124 however, also relies upon a report dated 24.12.2019, obtained by a private diagnostic centre, which states that there was a fracture at the head of the fifth metacarpal bone of the left hand. Manager Singh filed a petition for quashing of the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 556/2019 before the Allahabad High Court. He was given the benefit of arrest till the filing of the chargesheet, by an order of the High Court dated 09.01.2020. On 04.02.2020, a chargesheet was filed with an addition of Sections 308, 325 and 120B IPC, and impleading Manager Singh as an accused. The chargesheet under Section 173 of the Code, submitted before the court in the present case, under the column relating to brief facts of the case reads as under: “Sir, the aforesaid case was registered on the basis of written report/complaint of the complainant of the case and the investigation was being done by the S.I. Shri Ramchandra Mishra. On 15.01.2020 I have received the investigation. During the investigation, on the basis of the statement of the complainant as well as on the basis of medical report, section 120B/308/325 IPC was added and the name of accused Manager Singh has come into light, in which Bachan Sing Rawat and Mahendra Kumar were sent in judicial custody on 24.12.19. Till the filing of charge sheet, the accused Manager Singh has been granted stay of arrest by the court. The offences under Section 323/504/506/120B/308/325 IPC are duly proved against the accused Bachan Singh Rawat, Mahendra Kumar and Manger Singh. Therefore, charge sheet is filed against the accused Bachan Singh Rawat, Mahendra Kumar and Manager Singh under Section 323/504/506/120B/308/325 IPC before the Hon’ble Court. It is requested to summon the proof and punish and accused.” [2024] 6 S.C.R.  Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another On the chargesheet being submitted in the court of the Magistrate, order dated 10.02.2020 was passed recording that the chargesheet has been submitted for offences under 323, 504, 506, 120B, 308, 325 of the IPC against Bachhan Singh Rawat, Mahendra Kumar and Manager Singh. The order, taking cognisance and issuing summons, reads: “The chargesheet was filed under the offence number 556/2019, Section 323, 504, 506, 120B, 308, 325, IPC, Police Station Aliganj against the accused Bachan Singh Rawat, Mahendra Kumar and Manager Singh. Reviewed all prosecution forms. The grounds for taking cognizance are sufficient. Cognizance is taken. ORDER Register the case. The copies are ready attached. Accused Bachan Singh Rawat and Mahendra Kumar are out on bail. Jamanatnama is attached in the file and the arrest of the accused Manager Singh was a stay on the arrest till the filing of the chargesheet in the sequence of the order of the Hon’ble High Court, Miscellaneous Bench – 262/2020 order dated 09-01-20. Summons issued against the accused. Giving copy for paperwork. Attendance should be presented on 01-03-2020.” It appears that the matter was taken up for hearing by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on 18.02.2021, which records the presence of the counsel for Rajesh Wangvelu and that application for exemption from personal appearance was moved on behalf of Bachhan Singh Rawat and Mahendra Kumar. Manager Singh was absent and bailable warrants were issued against him, and he was required to appear on 04.03.2021. On 04.03.2021, an application for exemption from personal appearance was moved on behalf of Manager Singh on the ground that he had gone out for personal reasons where he had taken ill. This application was rejected on 04.03.2021 by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, recording that Manager Singh had not obtained bail till 126 then and there is no provision for granting exemption from personal appearance prior to obtaining bail. Therefore, non-bailable warrants have been issued against him. Another order dated 04.03.2021 records that bailable warrants were issued against Manager Singh but he had remained absent. To ensure his personal appearance non-bailable warrants were issued against him. By the impugned order dated 16.03.2021, the High Court had dismissed the petition filed by Manager Singh under Section 482 of the Code, to quash the criminal proceedings against him. On 03.09.2021, the High Court granted a further period of 10 days’ time to Manager Singh to surrender. He did not surrender and filed another application seeking extension of time to surrender. On 03.12.2021, Manager Singh filed the present appeal challenging correctness of the impugned order dated 16.03.2021. Rajesh Wangvelu has, before us, referred to FIR No. 224 of 2020 registered under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC on account of certain contracts having been awarded by Manager Singh, Dr. Neeta Nigam, Bachhan Singh Rawat, Mahendra Kumar, to M/s. V.K. Singh Construction Company, Punjab, in which case a final report has been submitted to the court. He has also referred to an office order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Culture, terminating services of Manager Singh with immediate effect.

45. Having regard to the facts of the present case, including the chargesheet as filed, which in our opinion is bereft of all details and particulars, we quash the summoning order against Manager Singh. The Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, would re-examine the entire matter in terms of the observations made in the present judgment and thereupon proceed in accordance with law.

46. We, however, would allow the present appeal to the extent that the non-bailable warrants issued against Manager Singh are unsustainable and should be quashed. It is a settled position of law [2024] 6 S.C.R.  Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another that non-bailable warrants cannot be issued in a routine manner and that the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed unless necessitated by the larger interest of public and the State. While there are no comprehensive set of guidelines for the issuance of non-bailable warrants, this Court has observed on several occasions that non-bailable warrants should not be issued, unless the accused is charged with a heinous crime, and is likely to evade the process of law or tamper/destroy evidence.30

47. Further, the observation that there is no provision for granting exemption from personal appearance prior to obtaining bail, is not correct, as the power to grant exemption from personal appearance under the Code31 should not be read in a restrictive manner as applicable only after the accused has been granted bail. This Court in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Another v. Rani Jethmalani32 held that the power to grant exemption from personal appearance should be exercised liberally, when facts and circumstances require such exemption.33 Section 205 states that the Magistrate, exercising his discretion, may dispense with the personal attendance of the accused while issuing summons, and allow them to appear through their pleader. While provisions of the Code are considered to be exhaustive, cases arise where the Code is silent and the court has to make such order as the ends of justice require. In such cases, the criminal court must act on the principle, that every procedure which is just and fair, is understood as permissible, till it is shown to be expressly or impliedly prohibited by law.34

48. It is also directed that Manager Singh shall be released on bail by the arresting officer/ investigating officer/trial court on the terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court in connection with the chargesheet originating from FIR No. 556 of 2019. The direction given by the High Court in its order dated 09.01.2020 restricting the grant of anticipatory bail till the filing of the chargesheet is accordingly Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others (2007) 12 SCC 1; Vikas v. State of Rajasthan (2014) 3 SCC 321 Section 205 of the Code. Also see, Section 317 of the Code. [1979] 2 SCR 378 : (1979) 4 SCC 167 See also, Puneet Dalmia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad (2020) 12 SCC 695 See, Popular Muthiah v. State Represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 7 SCC 296 and earlier judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Rahim Sheikh (1923) 50 Cal 872, 875 128 modified. We have issued the said direction in exercise of power under Article 142 read with Article 136 of the Constitution of India in view of the peculiar facts of the present case, including issue of non-bailable warrants etc. by the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate. CONCLUSION

49. In view of the aforesaid discussion, (i) the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1074/2017 preferred by Sharif Ahmed and Adil is allowed and the criminal proceedings are quashed; (ii) the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5419/2022 is allowed with the direction that in the event of being arrested, the appellants – Imran and Kamaluddin shall be released on anticipatory bail in connection with the chargesheet under Sections 420 and 120B IPC arising out of FIR No. 519/2019 dated 26.07.2019 registered at Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh on terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court. In addition, the appellants – Imran and Kamaluddin shall comply with the conditions mentioned in Section 438(2) of the Code; (iii) the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9482/2021 preferred by Manager Singh is partly allowed by – (a) quashing the summoning order issued against Manager Singh, with an order of remand to the Magistrate in terms of the observations in this judgment; (b) quashing the non-bailable warrants issued against Manager Singh; and (c) directing release of Manager Singh on bail by the arresting officer/investigating officer/trial court on terms and conditions fixed by the trial court in connection with the chargesheet under Sections 323, 504, 506, 120B, 308 and 325 IPC, arising out of FIR No. 556/2019 dated 23.12.2019 registered at Police Station Aliganj, District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.