# Smt. Suman Prajapati v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 148
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-06
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 25836 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-suman-prajapati-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53040
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Cognizance on police
report - Informant's right to notice - Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections
173(2)(ii) , 190(1)(b) &319 - Power to
proceed against other persons appearing
to be guilty of offence - Principles of
natural justice - Magistrate not bound to
issue notice to informant before taking
cognizance
against
charge-sheeted
accused - No prejudice is caused to the
informant when Magistrate has taken
cognizance only against charge-sheeted
persons without issuing notice to the
informant with respect to the persons
named in FIR but not charge-sheeted -
there remains scope to summon others
under
Section
319
Cr.P.C.
during
trial.(Para - 25 to 31)

FIR lodged by the applicant - charge sheet
submitted only against one accused - final
3 All. Smt. Suman Prajapati Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
149
report against five others - applicant challenged
the order of cognizance taken by Magistrate
without notice to her. (Para - 2,3)

HELD: - The right of the informant is not in any
way affected in case if the Magistrate has taken
cognizance only against charge-sheeted persons
without issuing notice to the informant with
respect to the persons who are named in the
FIR but have not been charge-sheeted. No
interference is called for in the present matter.
(Para -31,33)

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
religion because if a person purposely
undertakes the conversion of another
person to his religion, as distinguished from
his effort to transmit or spread the tenets of
his religion, that would impinge on the
"freedom of conscience" guaranteed to all
the citizens of the country alike."

53. The object of Act, 202016 is to
provide
for
prohibition
of
unlawful
conversion from one religion to another by
misrepresentation, force, undue influence,
coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent
means.

54. In view of the above settled
position of law, it is clear that unlawful
religious conversion, particularly when
achieved through coercion, fraud, or undue
influence, is considered a serious offence,
in which the Court cannot quash the
proceedings on the basis of settlement
between the parties.

55. In the case of Priyanshi @ Km
Shamreen and another vs. State of U.P.
and 3 Others17, the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court has considered the observation
made in Smt. Noor Jahan Begum @
Anjali Mishra & another vs. State of
U.P. and 4 Ors.18 and held that
conversation just for the purpose of
marriage is uncceptable. From the Act,
2020 also such conversation just for the
purpose of marriage is an offence.

56. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as above
stated position of law, the Court finds that
the alleged offences under section 376 IPC
and Section 3⁄4 (1) U.P. Conversion
Prevention Act, 2020, are serious in nature
and non-compoundable, therefore, the
instant proceedings cannot be quashed on
the basis of compromise between the
parties in exercise of powers conferred
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

57.
Accordingly,
the
present
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
dismissed.
---------
(2025) 3 ILRA 148
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 25836 of 2024

Smt. Suman Prajapati ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Lalji Yadav, Yashpal Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sanjay Kr. Srivastava

(A) Criminal Law - Cognizance on police
report - Informant's right to notice - Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections
173(2)(ii) , 190(1)(b) &319 - Power to
proceed against other persons appearing
to be guilty of offence - Principles of
natural justice - Magistrate not bound to
issue notice to informant before taking
cognizance
against
charge-sheeted
accused - No prejudice is caused to the
informant when Magistrate has taken
cognizance only against charge-sheeted
persons without issuing notice to the
informant with respect to the persons
named in FIR but not charge-sheeted -
there remains scope to summon others
under
Section
319
Cr.P.C.
during
trial.(Para - 25 to 31)

FIR lodged by the applicant - charge sheet
submitted only against one accused - final
3 All. Smt. Suman Prajapati Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
149
report against five others - applicant challenged
the order of cognizance taken by Magistrate
without notice to her. (Para - 2,3)

HELD: - The right of the informant is not in any
way affected in case if the Magistrate has taken
cognizance only against charge-sheeted persons
without issuing notice to the informant with
respect to the persons who are named in the
FIR but have not been charge-sheeted. No
interference is called for in the present matter.
(Para -31,33)

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Bhagwat Singh Vs Commissioner of Police &
anr., AIR 1985 SC 1285

2. U.P.S.C. Vs S. Papaiah,1997 (7) SCC 614

3. Abhinandan Jha & ors. Vs Dinesh Mishra,1968
AIR 117

4. Mahesh Chand Vs B. Janardan Reddy & anr.,
2003 (1) SCC 734

5. M.S. Ahlawat Vs St. of Har. & anr., 2000 (1)
SCC 278

6. India Carat P. Ltd. Vs St. of Karn. & anr., AIR
1989 SC 885

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Yashpal Yadav, learned
counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sanjay Kr.
Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan,
learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application has been
filed with prayer to quash the order dated
30.01.2024 passed by Additional Chief
Judicial
Magistrate1,
Court
No.16,
Allahabad in Criminal Case No.04/2024
(State Vs. Tripurari), arising out of Case
Crime No.436/2023, under Sections 498-A,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P.
Act, P.S. Dhoomanganj, District-Prayagraj
(Allahabad). It is further prayed to direct
the A.C.J.M. Court No.16, Allahabad to
provide an opportunity of hearing to the
applicant before taking further cognizance.

3. Brief facts of the case are; a first
information
report2
was
lodged
on
23.08.2023 at 20:55 hours by Smt. Suman
Prajapati (applicant) against six persons
with the allegations of being mentally and
physically harassed for additional dowry
demand. After investigation charge sheet
was submitted on 19.11.2023 only against
Tripurari Prajapati whereas final report was
submitted in favour of Santlal, Smt.
Lalmani Devi, Smt. Pratibha, Smt. Sandhya
and Divya on 19.11.2023. The charge sheet
dated 19.11.2023 was placed before the
Court concerned on 30.01.2024 and the
Court concerned took cognizance and
summoned
Tripurari
Prajapati
fixing
28.01.2024.

4.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant has challenged the order dated
30.01.2024 passed by the Court concerned
summoning Tripurari Prajapati against
whom a charge sheet has been submitted
without providing any opportunity to the
applicant (informant in the present case)
before taking cognizance in the matter.

5.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant submits that as per Section 173(2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733
the
Investigating
Officer
must
communicate about the action taken by him
to persons by whom the information
relating to commission of offence was
given first. The applicant-informant lodged
the FIR but the Investigating Officer
neither informed her about the progress of
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
investigation nor supplied a copy of the
case diary (police report) before its
submission to the Court below. Thus, the
submission of charge sheet before the
Court concerned without informing and
communicating about the police report to
the applicant was against the mandate of
Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., hence, improper,
unjust and illegal.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that a final report was
submitted in favour of other five persons who
were named in the FIR exonerating them
from the nemesis of law (legal proceedings)
as the applicant who had lodged the FIR was
affected by the same, hence, it was
mandatory for the learned Magistrate to issue
notice, give an opportunity to the informant
and only after hearing the informant, order
taking cognizance should have been passed,
thus the order taking cognizance against
Tripurari Prajapati and not against the others,
who were named in the FIR, though they
were exonerated is illegal and against the
principles of natural justice.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submits that the Investigating Officer
should have informed the applicant about the
charge sheet being submitted against opposite
party no.2 and final report being submitted
against other persons and also before passing
any orders the Court concerned should have
issued notices to the informant and after
providing an opportunity of hearing should
have taken cognizance. In support of his
submission he has relied upon judgement of
Apex Court passed in case of Bhagwat Singh
vs. Commissioner of Police and Anr4. Thus,
order dated 30.01.2024 is illegal and is liable
to be quashed.

8. Learned A.G.A. submits that at
this stage issuing notice to the informant
giving an opportunity to him to address the
Magistrate with respect to non-charge
sheeted persons, would prolong the matter
causing unnecessary delay whereas there is
ample time for the informant to place an
evidence on record during course of trial.
There is no illegality and infirmity in
submitting the charge sheet against the
accused only, hence, no interference is
required.

9. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

10. Before dealing with the issue in
hand, it would be appropriate to discuss
certain provisions for proper adjudication
of the matter.

11. Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C.
deals with information to the police and
their powers of investigation.

12. Section 154(1) provides that
every
information
relating
to
the
commission of a cognizable offence, if
given orally to an officer-in-charge of a
police station, shall be reduced in writing
by him or under his direction and be read
over to the informant and every such
information, whether given in writing or
reduced to writing, shall be signed by the
person giving it. As per Section 154(2)
Cr.P.C. a copy of such information shall be
given forthwith, free of cost, to the
informant.

13. Section 156(1) Cr.P.C. vests in
the officer-in-charge of a police station the
power to investigate any cognizable case
without the order of a magistrate and subsection (3) of that section authorises the
magistrate empowered under Section 190
to order an investigation as mentioned in
sub-section (1) of that section.
3 All. Smt. Suman Prajapati Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
151
14. Section 157(1) Cr.P.C. lays
down that if, from 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 Cr.P.C. to
investigate, he shall forthwith send a report
of the same to a Magistrate empowered to
take cognizance of such offence upon a
police report and shall 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. Thus, on an application u/s
156(3)
Cr.P.C.
as
moved
by
complainant/informant
before
the
Magistrate, FIR is lodged pursuant to the
order passed by the concerned Magistrate
to investigate and lodge an FIR. No sooner
he lodges the First Information Report, a
copy of it has to be supplied to him, free of
cost, under Section 154(2) Cr.P.C..

15. Proviso (b) to Section 157(2)
Cr.P.C. enacts that if it appears to the
officer-in-charge of a police station that
there is no sufficient ground for entering on
an investigation, he shall not investigate the
case. But in such a case, section 157(2)
Cr.P.C. requires that the officer shall
forthwith notify to the informant the fact
that he will not investigate the case or
cause it to be investigated. What the officer
in charge of a police station is required to
do on completion of the investigation is set
out in section

16.
Section
173(2)(i)
Cr.P.C.
provides that as soon as investigation is
completed, the officer in charge of a police
station shall forward to the magistrate
empowered to take cognizance of the
offence on a police report, a report in the
form prescribed by the State Government
setting out various particulars including
whether, in the opinion of the officer, as
offence appears to have been committed
and if so, by whom.

17.
Section
173(2)(ii)
Cr.P.C.
states
that
the
officer
shall
also
communicate, in such manner as may be
prescribed by the State Government, the
action taken by him to the person, if any,
by whom the information relating to the
commission of the offence was first given.

18. When the report forwarded by
the Officer-in-charge of a police station, to
the Magistrate under Section 173(2)(i)
Cr.P.C. comes up for consideration by the
Magistrate, one of two different situations
may arise.

(1) The report may conclude that
an offence appears to have been committed
by a particular person or persons.

(2) The report may on the other
hand state that, in the opinion of the police,
no
offence
appears
to
have
been
committed.

In such a situation the Magistrate
may take one of three following things:-

(i) He may accept the report and
take cognizance of the offence and issue
process; or,

(ii) he may disagree with the
report and drop the proceeding; or,

(iii)
he
may
direct
further
investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
and require the police to submit a further
report.

19.
In
either
of
these
two
situations, the Magistrate decides to take
cognizance of the offence and issue
process, the informant is not prejudicially
affected, nor is the injured or in case of
death, any relative of the deceased
aggrieved, because cognizance of the
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
offence is taken by the Magistrate and it is
decided by the Magistrate that the case
shall proceed. But if the Magistrate decides
that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding
further
and
drops
the
proceedings or takes the view that though
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against others mentioned in the First
Information Report, the informant would
certainly be prejudiced because the First
Information Report lodged by him would
have failed of its purpose; wholly or in part.
Moreover, when the interest of the
informant in prompt and effective action
being taken on the First Information Report
lodged by him is clearly recognised by the
provisions contained in Section 154(2)
Cr.P.C, of Section 157(2) Cr.P.C. and
Section 173(2)(ii) Cr.P.C, it must be
presumed that the informant would equally
be interested in seeing that the Magistrate
takes cognizance of the offence and issues
process, because that would be culmination
of the First Information Report lodged by
him.

20. The Court in Bhagwat Singh
(supra) was of the view that in a case
when a Magistrate to whom a report is
forwarded
under
Section
173(2)(i)
Cr.P.C. decides not to take cognizance of
the offence and to drop the proceedings
or takes the view that there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding against
some of the persons mentioned in the
First Information Report, the Magistrate
must give a notice to the informant and
provide him an opportunity of being
heard at the time of consideration of the
report, and the difficulty of serving notice
on the informant cannot possibly provide
any
justification
for
depriving
the
informant of the opportunity of being
heard at the time when the report is
considered by the Magistrate.
21. In the aforesaid case, the Court
could not find out either from the
provisions of the Code of Criminal
procedure, 1973 or from the principles of
natural justice, any obligation on the
Magistrate to issue notice to the injured
person or to a relative of the deceased for
providing such person an opportunity to be
heard at the time of consideration of the
report, unless such a person is the
informant who has lodged the First
Information Report. But observed that even
if such a person is not entitled to notice
from the Magistrate, they may still can
appear before the Magistrate and make
their submissions when the report is
considered by the Magistrate for the
purpose of deciding what action he should
take on the report. It was also observed that
the injured person or any relative of the
deceased, though not entitled to notice from
the Magistrate, has locus standi to appear
before the Magistrate at the time of
consideration of the report, if
they
otherwise come to know that the report is
going to be considered by the Magistrate
and if they wants to make their submissions
in regard to the report, the Magistrate is
bound to hear them.

22. From the provisions of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, principles of
natural justice as well as observations made
in Bhagwat Singh (supra), even though
the Magistrate is not bound to give notice
of the hearing fixed for consideration of the
report to the injured person or to any
relative of the deceased, he may, in the
exercise of his discretion, if he so thinks fit,
give such notice to the injured person or to
any particular relative or relatives of the
deceased, but not giving of such notice will
not have any invalidating effect on the
order which may be made by the
Magistrate on a consideration of the report.
3 All. Smt. Suman Prajapati Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
153
23. In the criminal cases, when
charge sheet is filed under Section 173 of
Cr.P.C., the Magistrate reviews it to decide
whether to take cognizance of the offence.
If the Police does not include certain
persons in charge sheet, who are shown as
an accused in the FIR, and the Magistrate
disagrees with this, the Magistrate can still
summon those persons if the evidence
suggests
their
involvement.
However
whether the Magistrate is bound to
summon the informant or complainant
before deciding not to summon the unchargesheeted persons depends upon the
situation and legal proceedings.

24. The Courts have ruled that the
informant and complainant should be given
an
opportunity
to
be
heard
before
Magistrate
decides
not
to
summon
individuals who have been left out of the
charge sheet. This is based on the
principles of natural justice, ensuring that
the informant has a chance to contest the
police's
decision.
However,
if
the
Magistrate is satisfied with the police report
and sees no ground to summon the unchargesheeted individuals, they can proceed
without necessarily hearing the informant.
The informant always has a chance to
challenge the final report by means of filing
protest petition which shall be heard by the
concerned Magistrate. It was also observed
that in the case where the persons shown as
an accused in the FIR are not charge sheeted,
there is always a scope of them being
summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., thus, it
cannot be said that the right of informant is
affected in case notices are not issued to them
in those cases where charge sheet has been
submitted against a few persons and rest of
the persons remain un-chargesheeted.

25. The Supreme Court of India in
the case of Bhagwat Singh (supra) held
that the informant must be heard when the
Magistrate
is
considering,
dropping
proceedings or accepting the final report
that excludes some accused persons.
However from the aforesaid, it cannot be
said that it is automatic in every case, that
if the Magistrate is not considering to
proceed against someone who was named
in the original complaint or FIR but left out
of the charge sheet, informant has right to
be heard. The aforesaid case is frequently
cited case for the principle that the
informant has right to be heard before a
Magistrate accepts a police report that
omits certain accused persons.

26. The Apex Court in another case
of Union Public Service Commission v.
S. Papaiah5, has clarified that the
Magistrate is not bound by the police report
and has the authority to take cognizance of
an offence even if certain individuals are
not charge sheeted, however, informant
must be given a chance to present
objections if Magistrate is inclined to
accept the report as it is.

27. In another case of Abhinandan
Jha & Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra6, the
Supreme Court ruled that Magistrate cannot
direct the police to submit a charge sheet
but can choose to disagree with the police
report and take cognizance of the offence,
this case establishes the Magistrate's
independence in evaluating the police
report but does not specifically address the
informant's right to be heard.

28. The Supreme Court in the case
of Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardan Reddy
And Anr.7 reiterated that the Magistrate
can take cognizance against individuals not
named in the charge sheet, if there is
sufficient material and the informant's right
to be heard can be implied in cases where
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Magistrate is evaluating whether to
proceed
against
un
chargesheeted
individuals or not.

29. The Apex Court expressed its
view in the case of M.S. Ahlawat v. State of
Haryana And Anr.8 that a fair hearing for
the complainant or informant is essential in
criminal
proceedings
especially
the
Magistrate is deciding on reports excluding
certain individuals from prosecution.

30. From the aforesaid judgements, it
is established that while the Magistrate has
discretion in accepting or rejecting the police
report, the informant or complainant must
generally be given an opportunity to be
heard, especially if the Magistrate is inclined
to accept a report that exonerates some
individuals.

31. After going through the aforesaid
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and various decisions, this Court is of the
opinion that issuance of notice to informant
giving opportunity to him to address the
Magistrate with respect to non-chargesheeted persons would prolong the matter
causing unnecessary delay and whereas
ample opportunity is there for the informant
to place evidence and materials on record
during course of trial, on the basis of which
they can be arrayed as accused persons
under the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C.,
no prejudice is caused to the informant when
the Magistrate has only issued notice to the
charge-sheeted persons as in the present
case. The right of the informant is not in any
way affected in case if the Magistrate has
taken cognizance only against chargesheeted persons without issuing notice to the
informant with respect to the persons who
are named in the FIR but have not been
charge-sheeted.

32. This Court feels that the stage of
Section 319 of Cr.P.C., has not yet been
reached in the present case. The order
impugned vide which cognizance has been
taken against the charge-sheeted persons is in
exercise of powers under Section 190(1)(b)
of Cr.P.C. and at this stage it is not fatal to the
powers of the Magistrate to take cognizance
of offence and issue process against those
who have not been arrayed as accused
persons by the police while filing the charge
sheet. The aforesaid has also been held in the
case of India Carat P. Ltd. Vs. State of
Karnataka & Anr.9.

33.
Having
considered
the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties, facts of the case and material
brought on record in view of the discussion
as referred to herein above, and keeping the
settled proposition of law on the issue, I am
of the view that no interference is called for
in the present matter. The instant application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.

34. The Court would like to
appreciate the hard work put in by Ms.
Shreya Shukla, Research Associate, who has
drawn attention to detail and the same shows
in her work of providing legal assistance in
this matter.
---------
(2025) 3 ILRA 154
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 28882 of 2024

Mukul Kumar Jain & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
C.B.I. ...Opposite Party