# Subhash Chandra & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr. 1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 1155
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-18
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 12482 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/subhash-chandra-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-1156-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-52525
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161, 173, 173(1), 173(2)
& 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 341, 504 &
506 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article
20 & 21 - Application u/s 482 - for quashing
the impugned summoning order - complaint -
allegations are that the applicants created two
forged 'Power of attorneys' to fraudulently
transfer the shops, which was in the names of
the complainant's father & mother as well as
restraining, abusing and causing threat to life
and property of the complainant - trial court
directed to registered FIR - investigation - within
18 days, police filed closure report - dissatisfied,
complainant filed protest petition - allowed -
applicants were summoned - instant application
- Evaluation of police proceedings - court finds
that - U.P.on close examination of closure
report, it was revealed that the I.O. relied solely
on the accused's St.ment treating it is an
unquestionable truth and dismissed the
victim's account, - no effort was made by the
I.O. to test the adversity of the accused's
St.ment by way of taking the assistance of
scientific methods, - nor the C.J.M. or I.O.
bothered for the alleged original forged
Power of Attorneys which forms the basis fo
the complainant' entire case - sad part is
that this is not the story of just one case;
this court's docket is filled with similar
petitions where I.O., despite allegations of
cheating by personation, mischief, creation
of forged documents, forgery of public
records,
forgery
of
valuable
securities,
forgery intended to harm reputation, fail to
conduct proper investigations - yet the police
continue to conduct investigations in an
outdated manner, heavily relying on St.ments
recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. without utilizing
available scientific tools to establish the guilt
of the accused - methods of committing
crimes have changed drastically, yet the
approach of the police in apprehending
accused
individuals
and
conducting
investigations remain rooted in outdated
methods - this not only wastes significant
court time but ultimately lead to a failure of
justice - held, - on the next date of hearing,
the D.G. of Training HQRS shall file the
current training curriculum and schedule for
police officers above the rank of constable,
focusing
on
basic
training
and
the
fundamentals of investigation, including: - (i)
registration
of
FIRs;
(ii)
arresting
an
accused; (iii) seizing incriminating material
(including in offenses against the human
body and property, as well as cybercrime);
(iv) basic knowledge of the medico-legal
aspects of investigation; (v) discovering facts
that lead to the guilt of the accused; (vi)
recording St.ments under Sections 180 and
183
of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, including their relevance as
evidence and related procedures; (vii) the
importance of scientific evidence, such as
fingerprints,
forensic
reports,
weapon
seizure, ballistic reports, blood samples,
DNA,
CDR,
and
CCTV
footage;
(viii)
retrieving evidence from pen drives and hard
disks, downloading evidence from social 17
media, and the procurement and seizure of
such evidence, as well as compliance with
Section
63
of
the
Bhartiya
Sakshya
Adhiniyam,
2023;
(ix)
knowledge
of
collecting blood samples; and (x) precautions
to be taken by Investigating Officer while
preparing the charge-sheet [checklist, if any;
or list of does & dont], (xi) role and
accountability of the S.S.P. in sU.P.ervising
investigations - date fixed - Interim order,
granted earlier, shall continue till the next
date of listing. (Para - 9, 12, 13, 28)

Application u/s 482 is pending. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,805 of 49,322. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39805 for what follows._

9 All. Subhash Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1155
record
his
reasons
only
for
discharging an accused at the stage
of Section 227, Cr. P.C. However,
when an application for discharge
is filed under Section 227, Cr. P.C.,
the Court concerned is bound to
disclose the reason(s), though, not
in detail, for finding sufficient
ground for rejecting the application
or in other words, for finding prima
facie case, as it will enable the
superior Court to examine the
challenge against the order of
rejection."

22. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
Court is of considered opinion that at this stage it
could not be held that wife of applicant died in
natural circumstances, rather, on basis of material
available, there is more than a prima-facie case
against the applicant that deceased died under
unnatural circumstances, due to intake of a
poisonous substance. For sake of argument, if it
is accepted that cause of death was due to
Myocardial Infarction, still on basis of research
reports available on record, it could not be ruled
out that immediate cause of it was intake of
poisonous substance found in different parts of
dead body.

23. The circumstances under which her
dead body was found as well as conduct of the
applicant, just in the proximity of the occurrence,
that he left for other station and returned back
after two days as well as evidence collected
during investigation, there are more than primafacie evidences against the applicant as referred
in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan
singh and others (Supra). At this stage
following observation of Vishnu Kumar Shukla
(Supra) being relevant are repeated that "at the
stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a
presumptive opinion to the existence of factual
ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it
is not expected to go deep into probative value of
the material on record and to check whether the
material on record would certainly lead to
conviction at the conclusion of trial.'

24. In the aforesaid circumstances I do
not find that the Trial Court has committed any
error in rejecting the discharge application. The
reasons
assigned
are
sustainable
legally.
Accordingly, Application U/S 482 No. 6045 of
2020 is rejected.

25. The application U/S 482 No. 8645
of 2021 is being filed by the applicant
challenging framing of charge which is only a
consequential order, since the Court has already
rejected the challenge to rejection of discharge
application, therefore, the present Application
U/S 482 No. 8645 of 2021 is also rejected.

26. So far as Application U/S 482 No.
16035 of 2021 is concerned, it is being filed by
complainant to alter charge from Section 306
I.P.C to Sections 302 and 328 I.P.C., however as
already referred above, no objection was raised
by the complainant at the stage of framing of
charge or earlier during the discharge application,
therefore, at this stage the prayer cannot be
considered, however, in terms of Section 216
Cr.P.C., learned Trial Court would be at liberty to
alter the charge on basis of material available on
records. The Application U/S 482 No. 16035 of
2021 is accordingly disposed of.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 1155
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 12482 of 2024

Subhash Chandra & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents
1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Gaurav Pundir, Sri N.I. Zafri (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ayush Mishra, G.A., Sri Hitesh Kumar Mishra,
Sri Sunil Kumar Misra

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161, 173, 173(1), 173(2)
& 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 341, 504 &
506 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article
20 & 21 - Application u/s 482 - for quashing
the impugned summoning order - complaint -
allegations are that the applicants created two
forged 'Power of attorneys' to fraudulently
transfer the shops, which was in the names of
the complainant's father & mother as well as
restraining, abusing and causing threat to life
and property of the complainant - trial court
directed to registered FIR - investigation - within
18 days, police filed closure report - dissatisfied,
complainant filed protest petition - allowed -
applicants were summoned - instant application
- Evaluation of police proceedings - court finds
that - U.P.on close examination of closure
report, it was revealed that the I.O. relied solely
on the accused's St.ment treating it is an
unquestionable truth and dismissed the
victim's account, - no effort was made by the
I.O. to test the adversity of the accused's
St.ment by way of taking the assistance of
scientific methods, - nor the C.J.M. or I.O.
bothered for the alleged original forged
Power of Attorneys which forms the basis fo
the complainant' entire case - sad part is
that this is not the story of just one case;
this court's docket is filled with similar
petitions where I.O., despite allegations of
cheating by personation, mischief, creation
of forged documents, forgery of public
records,
forgery
of
valuable
securities,
forgery intended to harm reputation, fail to
conduct proper investigations - yet the police
continue to conduct investigations in an
outdated manner, heavily relying on St.ments
recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. without utilizing
available scientific tools to establish the guilt
of the accused - methods of committing
crimes have changed drastically, yet the
approach of the police in apprehending
accused
individuals
and
conducting
investigations remain rooted in outdated
methods - this not only wastes significant
court time but ultimately lead to a failure of
justice - held, - on the next date of hearing,
the D.G. of Training HQRS shall file the
current training curriculum and schedule for
police officers above the rank of constable,
focusing
on
basic
training
and
the
fundamentals of investigation, including: - (i)
registration
of
FIRs;
(ii)
arresting
an
accused; (iii) seizing incriminating material
(including in offenses against the human
body and property, as well as cybercrime);
(iv) basic knowledge of the medico-legal
aspects of investigation; (v) discovering facts
that lead to the guilt of the accused; (vi)
recording St.ments under Sections 180 and
183
of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, including their relevance as
evidence and related procedures; (vii) the
importance of scientific evidence, such as
fingerprints,
forensic
reports,
weapon
seizure, ballistic reports, blood samples,
DNA,
CDR,
and
CCTV
footage;
(viii)
retrieving evidence from pen drives and hard
disks, downloading evidence from social 17
media, and the procurement and seizure of
such evidence, as well as compliance with
Section
63
of
the
Bhartiya
Sakshya
Adhiniyam,
2023;
(ix)
knowledge
of
collecting blood samples; and (x) precautions
to be taken by Investigating Officer while
preparing the charge-sheet [checklist, if any;
or list of does & dont], (xi) role and
accountability of the S.S.P. in sU.P.ervising
investigations - date fixed - Interim order,
granted earlier, shall continue till the next
date of listing. (Para - 9, 12, 13, 28)

Application u/s 482 is pending. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Pakhandu & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr. -
(2001) SCC OnLine All 967,

2. Harkesh Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. (2001) 43
All CRIC 720,

3. Anwar & ors. Vs St. of U.P & ors. - LAWS
(ALL) 2016-5-560,

4. Dablu Kujur Vs St. of Jharkhand - (2024) 6
SCC 758,
9 All. Subhash Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1157
5. R.K. Dalmia etc. Vs Delhi Administration -
(1962) SCC OnLine SC 83,

6. Sharif Ahmed & anr.Vs St. of U.P. & anr.-
(2024) SCC OnLine SC 726.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. Heard Shri N.I. Zafri, learned
Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Gaurav
Pundir, learned counsel for the applicants,
Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the
complainant, and learned A.G.A. for the
State-respondent.

2. In the instant case, the
applicants challenged a summoning order,
passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on
a protest petition owing to filing a closure
report by the Police within 18 days of the
registration of the FIR. Succinctly, the crux
of the allegations is that the complainant's
father had four shops in his name bearing
no.7/11, 7/1, 7/2, 7/8, and his mother had two
shops in her name bearing No. 7/11 and 7/4,
respectively, situated at Ramganj, Sarai
Hakeem Bannaderi, District Aligarh. Petitioner
no. 3, who is the elder brother of the
complainant's father, in connivance with other
applicants, executed two forged power of
attorneys
dated
06.04.2023
in
which,
apparently, Amita Rani- the mother of
complainant, authorized Gaurav and his wife
Priyanka to execute the sale-deed and appoint
advocate, and to take care of the demised
property for and on her behalf, and Pradeep
Kumar - the father of complainant, authorized
Subhash Chandra, his younger brother to
execute the sale deed and appoint advocate,
and to take care of the demised property for
and on his behalf, besides, other allegations of
restraining, abusing and causing threat to life
and property of the complainant.

3. Based on the aforesaid facts,
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide
order dated 10.01.2024, directed S.H.O.
P.S. Civil Lines, Aligarh to register the FIR
against the applicants and consequent
thereupon, a case crime no. 8/2024, under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 341, 504, 506
I.P.C. was registered against (i) Gaurav S/o
Subhash Chandra, (ii) Priyanka W/o
Gaurav, (iii) Subhash Chandra S/o Late
Shri Krishan Murari Lal, (iv) Saurabh S/o
Subhash Chandra, (v) Ankur S/o Subhash
Chandra, (vi) Richa W/o Saurabh, and, (vii)
Priya W/o Ankur, all resident of Ramghat
Road, Mahuwa Kheda, Aligarh at Police
Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh.

4. The investigation was concluded
within 18 days. The police decided to
submit a closure report based on the
statements of the accused, an inspection
report
of
the
crime
scene,
witness
statements, CCTV footage, statements from
police officers on duty, as well as
testimonies from some fruit sellers and a
stamp vendor, along with the notary public.
Dissatisfied with the closure report, the
complainant filed a protest petition against
the applicants. This protest petition was
allowed by a summoning order dated
03.04.2024, leading the applicants to bring
the matter before this Court.

5. Shri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior
Counsel for the applicants, submits that; (i)
the impugned summoning order is in the
teeth of Pakhandu and Others v. State of
U.P. & Anr.1, Harkesh Singh and Others
v. State of U.P.2, and Anwar & Ors. v.
State of U.P & Ors.3, (ii) learned trial
Court has placed reliance upon an affidavit
containing certain documents- which were,
of course not part of the closure report -
filed by the complainant in support of the
protest petition, erroneously, (iii) there is a
civil suit bearing Original Suit No. 567 of
2016 and 568 of 2016 pending between the
1158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
parties, (iv) the Investigating Officer has
rightly concluded the investigation and
filed the closure report, and (v) both the
power of attorneys dated 06.04.2023 is not
a registered documents and are not
supported by proper seal, signatures and
stamps, and no illegal benefit could have
been derived out of such documents.

6. Per contra, Shri Ajay Singh,
holding brief of Shri Hitesh Kumar Mishra,
learned
counsel
for
the
complainant/respondent no.2, submits that
the Investigating Officer has conducted a
tainted and biased investigation, which has
curtailed
the
complainant's
legitimate
expectation
of
fair
investigation
as
enshrined as part of constitutional rights
guaranteed under Article 20 and 21 of the
Constitution of India and thus, argues that;
(i) the Investigating Officer has deliberately
with the purpose to give undue advantage
to the accused-petitioners, did not send the
forged power of attorney dated 06.04.2023
for
scientific
examination;
the
complainant's father allegedly signed one
and his mother signed the other, (ii) the
specimen signature of Smt. Amita Rani and
Shri Pradeep Kumar, the alleged executors
of power of attorney and witness Gaurav
Goyal, Ankita Agarwal W/o Gaurav Goyal;
Notary Public, the Stamp Vendor and other
persons who were signatories to the forged
documents are not taken by the I.O., (iii)
the CCTV footage, on which the I.O. has
placed reliance, has not been sent to the
F.S.L., (iv) the investigation has not been
conducted in the direction in accordance
with the ingredients of the offence, (v) the
I.O. made no efforts to extract the truth of
the case, (vi) the investigation was not fair
and has been conducted with ulterior
motive, and (vii) the investigation was
conducted in collusion with the accused
persons.
7. In brief, the main allegation is
that the applicants created two forged
powers of attorney to fraudulently transfer
the shop, which was in the names of the
complainant's father and mother. The entire
investigation relies on statements recorded
by the police under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C., and the investigation was botched-
up, and hurriedly completed in just 18 days.

8. This Court vide order dated
22.04.2024 called upon learned A.G.A. to
explain why the Investigating Officer has
not taken the forensic and scientific
assistance to determine the genuineness of
a power of attorneys dated 06.04.2023 by
way of an affidavit of S.H.O. P.S. Civil
Lines,
Aligrah
explaining;
(i)
what
precluded the Investigating Officer from
taking the specimen signature of Smt.
Amita Rani, Shri Pradeep Kumar, Shri
Gaurav Goyal, Smt. Ankita Agarwal,
Notary Public who had notarized the power
of attorney dated 06.04.2023 and other
concerned persons whom he could have
deemed fit and proper to extract the truth of
execution
of
the
documents
dated
06.04.2023, (ii) list of the cases assigned to
S.I. Rajesh Kumar for investigation since
his posting at P.S. Civil Lines, the lists shall
include date of assignment of the case(s)
with brief description of each case, status
of investigation, date of filing of the charge
sheet, if any, and other relevant information
which discloses the details about the
pendency and progress of investigation of
each case from the date of registration of
F.I.R. (s) (total number of cases assigned),
(iii) as to why preference has been
accorded to the instant case in concluding
the investigation just within a period of 18
days;
the
F.I.R.
was
registered
on
10.01.2024 and the investigation was
concluded on 29.01.2024, (iv) the S.H.O.
P.S. Civil Line shall also file the list of such
9 All. Subhash Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1159
F.I.R.s (all F.I.R.s registered at P.S. Civil
Lines) in which investigation is still in
progress, in tabular form, containing date
of registration of F.I.R. and status of
investigation till date. The S.H.O. P.S. Civil
Lines was directed to file an affidavit with
the endorsement of S.S.P. Aligarh that the
terms of the order dated 22.04.2024 are
complied with in letter and spirit.

9. It is noteworthy that, upon close
examination of the closure report, it was
revealed that the Investigating Officer
relied solely on the accused's statement and
dismissed the victim's account, without
even requesting the crucial document. The
closure report was filed based entirely on
the accused's statement, treating it as
unquestionable truth and no effort was
made by the Investigating Officer to test
the adversity of the accused's statement by
way of taking the assistance of scientific
methods. Surprisingly, neither the Learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
nor
the
Investigating Officer bothered for the
alleged original forged Power of Attorney,
which forms the basis of the complainant's
entire case.

10. In compliance with the
aforesaid order, S.H.O., P.S. Civil Lines
filed an affidavit, but same was in complete
disregard of the terms of the order passed
by this Court. Subsequently, the S.S.P. was
asked to file his personal affidavit, which
turn out to be worst than the affidavit of
S.H.O. Leaving no other option, the A.C.S.
(Home) was directed to go through the
order dated 22.4.2024 and 17.5.2024
passed by this Court in the instant case
along with the personal affidavit filed by
the S.S.P., Aligarh. It was also directed that
the A.C.S. (Home) shall examine the
closure report and the protest petition filed
by the complainant. Based on the aforesaid
deliberations, it was directed a personal
affidavit be filed by an official not below
the rank of Secretary in the Home
Department of U.P. addressing the points
outlined herein (i) whether the orders dated
22.4.2024
and
17.5.2024
have
been
complied with in both letter and spirit. If
these orders have not been fully complied
with, the affidavit should explain what
precluded the S.S.P. Aligarh to furnish the
list of FIRs pending investigation at the
Civil Lines police station, as referenced in
paragraphs 8 (iii) and (vi) of the order
dated 22.4.2024. It should be noted that the
S.S.P. Aligarh only provided the list of
cases registered in the year 2024, for
reasons known only to him, (ii) what
remedies are available to the Government
when the senior-most police officer of the
District disobeys orders issued by the
Constitutional Courts?, intentionally or
otherwise.

11. On examination of the affidavit
filed by the Secretary (Home), it's revealed
that the same was not adquate and the
matter was adjourned on the request of
learned Government Advocate to file a
better affidavit complying with the terms of
order dated 21.5.2024.

12. The sad part is that this is not
the story of just one case; this Court's
docket is filled with similar petitions where
Investigating Officers, despite allegations
of cheating by personation, mischief,
creation of forged documents, forgery of
public
records,
forgery
of
valuable
securities,
forgery
intended
to
harm
reputation, and using forged documents or
electronic records as genuine, fail to
conduct proper investigations. Cases also
include
offenses
like
possession
of
counterfeit items with intent to commit
forgery,
use
of
forged
trademarks,
1160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counterfeit
currency
or
banknotes,
fraudulent
property
registrations,
publication of sexually explicit material in
electronic form, video voyeurism, breach of
confidentiality,
data
leaks
by
intermediaries,
e-commerce
fraud
(including phishing and identity theft), and
offensive messages through communication
services. Yet, the police continue to conduct
investigations in an outdated manner,
heavily relying on statements recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., without utilizing
available scientific tools to establish the
guilt of the accused.

13. As time has progressed, the
methods
of
committing
crimes
have
changed drastically, yet the approach of the
police in apprehending accused individuals
and conducting investigations remains
rooted in outdated methods. The most
troubling aspect is that this fosters
corruption
within
the
police
force,
increasing
the
likelihood
of
false
accusations, while the real offenders often
escape their grasp. Consequently, the real
culprits frequently evade justice. This not
only wastes significant court time but
ultimately leads to a failure of justice.

14. Recently, in a case before the
Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No. 10536 of 2023, titled Sanuj
Bansal v. State of U.P. & Anr., the D.G.P.,
Uttar Pradesh gave an undertaking that
chargesheet in Uttar Pradesh are not filed
on the basis of the confessional statement,
this undertaking needs to be implemented
by the police across the entire state.

15. It is worth noting that charge
sheets are often filed in routine template
formats
without
containing
sufficient
material for the Courts to reasonably
conclude that the offenses mentioned are
prima facie made out. While the Case Diary
(C.D.) may outline a sequence of events, it
cannot substitute for the requirement of a
detailed account of the steps taken by the
Investigating Officer, along with the
material facts necessary to establish the
ingredients of the sections under which the
charge sheets are filed to part of the report
under section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

16. The Supreme Court in Dablu
Kujur v. State of Jharkhand4 has held
that Investigating Officers while submitting
the charge sheet/police report, did not
comply with the requirements of Section
173(2) Cr.P.C. The mandatory requirement
to be complied with by the Investigating
Officer in the police report/chargesheet is
laid down in Section 173 Cr.P.C., more
particularly sub-section (2) thereof. A
charge - sheet is nothing but a final report
of the police officer under Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C. It is an opinion or intimation of the
Investigating officer to the Court concerned
that on the material collected during the
course of the investigation, an offence
appears to have been committed by the
particular person or persons or that no
offence appears to have been committed.

17. The relevant portion of Dablu
Kujur's case (supra) is reproduced herein
below:

"19.
The
abovereferred
discussion has been necessitated
for highlighting the significance of
the compliance of requirements of
the provisions contained in Section
173(2) Cr.P.C.
20. Ergo, having regard to
the provisions contained in Section
173, it is hereby directed that the
Report of police officer on the
9 All. Subhash Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1161
completion of the investigation
shall contain the following:
20.1. 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)]
20.2 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.
20.3. 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.
20.4. 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 paras 20.1 to 20.3.
21. It is further directed
that the officer in charge of the
police stations in every State shall
strictly comply with the aforestated directions, and the noncompliance thereof shall be strictly
viewed by the courts concerned in
which the police peports are
submitted."

18. In the case of R.K. Dalmia
etc. v. Delhi Administration5 a reference
was made to Section 173(1) Cr.P.C. of the
1898 Code that the charge-sheet must
contain name of the parties, nature of the
information and the names of the persons
who appears to be acquainted with the
circumstances of the case.

19. The Supreme Court in Sharif
Ahmed and another v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr6 while dealing with the
requirements of charge-sheet, examined
some of the regularly referred and relied
upon judgments of the Supreme Court, the
relevant portion of the Sharif Ahmed's case
1162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(supra) is extracted herein below, for ready
reference:

"22. Recently a three Judge
Bench of this Court in Zakia Ahsan
Jafri v. State of Gujarat (2022) 6
SCR 1: 2022 INSC 653, has
observed:
11. This Court in Dayal
Singh noted that the investigating
officer is obliged to act as per the
Police Manual and known canons
of practice while being diligent,
truthful
and
fair
in
his/her
approach and investigation. It has
been noted in the reported decision
that an investigating officer is
completely
responsible
and
answerable for the manner and
methodology adopted in completing
his investigation. Concededly, upon
completion of investigation, the
investigating officer is obliged to
submit
Report
setting
out
prescribed
details,
to
the
Magistrate empowered to take
cognizance of the offence referred
to therein, without unnecessary
delay. The Report so presented is
the conclusion reached by the
investigating officer on the basis of
materials
collected
during
investigation. The duty of the
investigating officer is to collate
every relevant information/material
during the investigation, which he
must believe to be the actual course
of events and the true facts
unraveling the commission of the
alleged crime and the person
involved in committing the same.
He is expected to examine the
materials from all angles. In the
event, there is sufficient evidence or
reasonable ground that an offence
appears to have been committed
and the person committing such
offence has been identified, the
investigating officer is obliged to
record his opinion in that regard,
as required by Section 173(2)(i)(d)
of the Code. In other words, if the
investigating officer intends to send
the accused for trial, he is obliged
to form a firm opinion not only
about the commission of offence,
but also about the involvement of
such person in the commission of
crime.
12. Such opinion is the
culmination of the analysis of the
materials collected during the
investigation - that there is "strong
suspicion" against the accused,
which eventually will lead the
concerned Court to think that there
is a ground for "presuming" that
the accused "has" committed the
alleged offence; and not a case of
mere suspicion. For being a case of
strong suspicion, there must exist
sufficient materials to corroborate
the facts and circumstances of the
case; and be of such weight that it
would
facilitate
the
Court
concerned to take cognizance of the
crime and eventually lead it to
think (form opinion) that there is
ground "for presuming that the
accused
has
committed
an
offence", as alleged - so as to
frame a charge against him in
terms of Section 228(1) or 246(1)
of the Code, as the case may be.
For taking cognizance of the crime
or to frame charges against the
accused, the Court must analyze
the Report filed by the investigating
officer
and
all
the
materials
appended thereto and then form an
9 All. Subhash Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1163
independent prima facie opinion as
to whether there is ground for
"presuming" that the accused
"has" committed an offence, as
alleged. (It is not, "may" have or
"likely" to have committed an
offence, but a ground for presuming
that he has committed an offence).
The Magistrate in the process may
have to give due weightage to the
opinion of the investigating officer.
If such is to be the eventual
outcome
of
the
final
Report
presented
by
the
investigating
officer, then there is nothing wrong
if he applies the same standard to
form
an
opinion
about
the
materials collected during the
investigation and articulate it in the
Report submitted under Section 173
of the Code. It may be useful to
refer to the decisions adverted to in
Afroz Mohd. Hasanfata including
in the case of Ramesh Singh and
I.K. Nangia.
xx xx xx
63. Needless to underscore
that every information coming to
the investigating agency must be
regarded as relevant. However, the
investigating agency is expected to
make
enquiries
regarding
the
authenticity of such information
and after doing so must collect
corroborative evidence in support
thereof.
In
absence
of
corroborative evidence, it would be
merely a case of suspicion and not
pass the muster of grave suspicion,
which is the pre-requisite for
sending the suspect for trial. This is
the mandate in Section 173(2)(i)(d)
of the Code, which postulates that
the investigating officer in his
Report must indicate whether any
offence appears to have been
committed and if so, by whom. The
opinion of the investigating officer
formed on the basis of materials
collected
during
the
investigation/enquiry must be given
due weightage. That would only be
the threshold, to facilitate the
concerned
Court
to
take
cognizance of the crime and then
frame charge if it is of the opinion
that there is ground for presuming
that the accused has committed an
offence triable under Chapter XIX
of the Code.
23. In K. Veeraswami v.
Union of India and others (1991) 3
SCC 655, 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:
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 chargesheet 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 chargesheet
1164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
filed by him must contain such
averment. The failure to mention
that requirement would vitiate the
chargesheet 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
chargesheet.
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
that 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
9 All. Subhash Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1165
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
chargesheet
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) 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 v. State of Bihar
(1980) 3 SCC 152, 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
1166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is committed, 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 Delhi (1954)
2 SCC 934, 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 an examination of
various persons, a 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 v. Dinesh Mishra
AIR 1968 SC 117 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.
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 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 a brief narration of
the material collected during the
investigation, which forms the
opinion of the investigating officer,
should be mentioned in the charge
sheet.
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."

20. Criminal investigation in India
has a long and complex history, deeply
influenced by the country's socio-political
and cultural evolution. The traditional
methods have heavily relied on physical
evidence, witness testimony, and, at times,
methods of coercion and intimidation. The
criminal
investigation
in
India
was
primarily shaped by the colonial legacy,
where policing was designed to control
rather than serve justice impartially. While
9 All. Subhash Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1167
these methods may have been effective in
their time, but they often lacked the
fairness,
transparency
and
efficiency
required for just law enforcement in a
democratic society. The idea was to
effectively maintain law and order for
British administration rather than serve the
purpose of law. The investigation often
depended
on
secret
information
and
physical evidence without support of
scientific methods.