Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL  NO.1412 OF  2014 (Arising out of SLP(CRL.) No.3308 of 2013)

RAKESH & ANR ...   APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ANR.   ..   RESPONDENTS  

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Whether a Magistrate after accepting a negative final  

report submitted by the Police can take action on the basis  

of  the  protest  petition  filed  by  the  complainant/first  

informant? The above question having been answered in the  

1

Page 2

affirmative  by  the  Allahabad  High  Court,  this  appeal  has  

been filed by the accused.

3. The bare facts that would be required to be noticed are  

as follows :  

Respondent  No.2  herein  lodged  an  FIR  which  was  

registered as Crime Case No.480 of 2000 under Section 364  

of  the Indian Penal  Code at  the Police Station Gosai  Ganj  

District  Sultanpur  against  the  appellants  and  two  other  

accused  persons.  On  completion  of  investigation,  the  

investigating officer submitted a final report to the court that  

no case is made out against the appellants and the other  

two accused and that they have been falsely implicated in  

the case. By order dated 26th November, 2002, the learned  

Magistrate  accepted  the  final  report  but  simultaneously  

directed  that  the  case  be proceeded with  as  a  complaint  

case.  The statements  under  Sections  200 and 202 of  the  

Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) were recorded and the  

accused were summoned by the learned trial court to face  

the trial. Against the aforesaid orders passed by the learned  

Magistrate, the present appellants moved the High Court of  

2

Page 3

Allahabad  raising  the  question  noticed  earlier.  The  High  

Court having answered the said question in the affirmative,  

this appeal has been filed.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. In  Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha vs. State of Bihar  1  ,  

the very same question came up for consideration before the  

Patna High Court. The High Court answered the question in  

the negative by holding –

“In  that  case  it  has  been  held  by  the   Supreme Court that if the Magistrate agrees   with the opinion of the police he may accept   the final report and close the proceedings. It   will be deemed that the proceedings against   the accused persons in respect of the facts   constituting the offence have been closed by   the Magistrate in a Judicial-Proceeding. If it is   so, such proceeding can only beset aside in   revision by the higher  authority  unless and  until the order is not set aside, the Magistrate   is  not  entitled  to  take  cognizance  on  the  basis  of  the  complaint  petition  or  protest   petition  in  respect  of  the  same  facts   constituting the offence as mentioned in the   final form. In the present case, it is clear from  the order dated 6th Dec. 1978, that the final   form was accepted by the court earlier. If it is   so,  then the Magistrate was not justified in   taking  cognizance  in  respect  of  the  same  facts  constituting  the  offence  which  were   mentioned in the final form. In order to check   

1 [1981 Crl.LJ 795]

3

Page 4

the  litigation,  it  is  necessary  that  when  a   judicial order is passed by accepting the final   form such order should not be set aside by  the Magistrate by taking cognizance on the   basis of the complaint petition.”

6. In the appeal filed against the aforesaid order of the  

Patna High Court, this Court, however, held that –  

“The  High  Court  was  clearly  in  error  in  thinking  that  the  Magistrate  could  not  take  cognizance of a case upon complaint because  he had earlier refused to take cognizance of  the case on a police report. The order of the  High  Court  is  set  aside.  The  matter  is  remitted  to  the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Patna  for  disposal  according  to  law.  If  the  accused have any further objections to raise,  they  may  do  so  before  the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate.”

The decision of this Court is reported in  Gopal Vijay  

Verma vs. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha & Ors.  2   .

7. If we are to go back to trace the genesis of the views  

expressed by this Court in Gopal Vijay Verma (supra), notice  

must be had of the decision of this Court in H.S. Bains vs.  

2 1982 (3) SCC 510

4

Page 5

State (Union Territory of Chandigarh)  3   wherein it  was  

held that after receipt of the police report under Section 173,  

the Magistrate has three options –  

“(1) he may decide that there is no sufficient  ground  for  proceeding  further  and  drop  action;  

(2)  he  may take cognizance of  the  offence  under Section 190 (1)(b) on the basis of the  police report and issue process; this he may  do without being bound in any manner by the  conclusion  arrived  at  by  the  police  in  their  report;

(3)  he  may take cognizance of  the  offence  under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the  original  complaint  and  proceed  to  examine  upon oath the complainant and his witnesses  under  Section  200.  If  he  adopts  the  third  alternative, he may hold or direct an inquiry  under Section 202 if he thinks fit. Thereafter  he  may  dismiss  the  complaint  or  issue  process, as the case may be.”

8. The  second  and  third  options  available  to  the  

Magistrate  as  laid  down  in  H.S.  Bains (supra)  has  been  

referred to and relied upon in subsequent decisions of this  

Court to approve the action of the Magistrate in accepting  

the final report and at the same time in proceeding to treat  3 [1980 Crl. LJ 1308],

5

Page 6

either the police report or the initial complaint as the basis  

for  further  action/enquiry  in  the  matter  of  the  allegations  

levelled therein. Reference in this regard may be made to  

the decision of this Court in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre  

vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.4. The following view may  

be specifically noted -  

“…………….The  Magistrate  can  ignore  the  conclusion  arrived  at  by  the  investigating  officer and independently apply his mind to  the facts emerging from the investigation and  take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit,  exercise his powers under Section 190(1)(b)  and  direct  the  issue  of  process  to  the  accused. The Magistrate is not bound in such  a situation to follow the procedure laid down  in  Sections  200  and  202  of  the  Code  for  taking  cognizance  of  a  case  under  Section  190(1)(a)  though  it  is  open  to  him  to  act  under Section 200 or Section 202 also. [See  India  Carat  (P)  Ltd. v.  State of  Karnataka]”  (Para 6)

9. The  view  expressed  by  this  Court  in  Gopal  Vijay  

Verma (supra)  has  been followed in  Mahesh Chand vs.  

B.Janardhan Reddy & Anr.  5   and also in a somewhat recent  

pronouncement  in  Kishore  Kumar  Gyanchandani  vs.  

4 [2004 (7) SCC 768] (para 9) 5 [2003 (1) SCC 734] (para 12)

6

Page 7

G.D.Mehrotra & Anr.6. The clear exposition of law in para  

12  of  Mahesh  Chand (supra)  which  is  extracted  below  

would  leave  no  manner  of  doubt  that  the  answer  to  the  

question posed by the High Court is correct.

“There cannot be any doubt or dispute that  only because the Magistrate has accepted a  final  report,  the  same  by  itself  would  not  stand in  his  way to take cognizance of  the  offence on a protest/complaint  petition;  but  the question which is  required to be posed  and  answered  would  be  as  to  under  what  circumstances  the  said  power  can  be  exercised.”

10. In the present case, the contention advanced on behalf  

of  the  accused  pertained  to  the  question  of  jurisdiction  

alone; it was urged that having accepted the final report the  

learned  Magistrate  had  become “functus  officio”  and  was  

denuded of all power to proceed in the matter. The above  

stand  taken  and  the  answer  provided  by  the  High  Court  

would not require us to consider the circumstances in which  

the exercise of power was made.  

6 [2011 (15) SCC 513]

7

Page 8

11.   In  Kishore Kumar (supra) the  question has been  

gone  into  again  and  reliance  has  been  placed  on  Gopal  

Vijay Verma (supra) to reiterate the same conclusion.  

12. In view of the above, it has to be held that this appeal is  

without any merit or substance. It is accordingly dismissed.  

 ……..…..…………………………...J. [Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya]

……..…………………………….……J.                     [Ranjan Gogoi]

New Delhi; August 13, 2014.  

8