# Subhash Chandra & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1879
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-12
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. 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-opp-parties-53374
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section
482 - Police investigation - Quality of
investigation
-
Closure
report
filed
without forensic examination - Protest
petition
allowed
-
Quashing
of
summoning order - Systemic reform -
Directions
for
mandatory
review
of
charge-sheets
by
prosecution
-
Implementation of scientific investigation
and modern police training - Circular No.
DG/Circular-06/2018 reaffirmed - Held,
investigation must be fair, scientific, and
based
on
evidence;
mechanical,
perfunctory
or
biased
investigations
violate Articles 20 and 21 - Summoning
order
based
on
non-existent
forged
document unsustainable - Proceedings
quashed
-
Comprehensive
directions
issued
for
modernizing
police
investigation and training. (Paras 8, 9, 12,
13, 25, 33, 38 and 39)

HELD:
1880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Recently, in Sanuj Bansal v. State of U.P. & Anr 4
, the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh,
gave an undertaking that chargesheets in the
state are not filed solely on the basis of
confessional statements. However, this Court
has observed that, in practice, chargesheets are
routinely filed on a daily basis relying primarily
on the confessional statements of co-accused,
without any discovery of corroborative evidence-
an approach that is in clear derogation of the
law. (Para 12)

It is also interesting to discuss that the reports
filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. are routinely filed
in template formats without having sufficient
material enabling the Courts to come to a
reasonable
conclusion
that
the
offences
mentioned in the charge-sheet are made out
prima-facie. The C.D. may suggest sequence of
events but the C.D. cannot replace the
requirement of detailed descriptions of steps
taken by the Investigating Officer along with the
relevant facts and evidence collected during
investigation, in column-16 of the police report
filed under section 173 Cr.P.C. (Para 13)

Keeping in mind the aforesaid deliberations, vide
order dated 18.9.2024 a copy of the charge
sheet was forwarded to the Additional Chief
Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh; the Director
General of Police; and the Director General
(Training), Headquarters, with the direction to
review the same and assess whether chargesheets filed by the police are in consonance with
the legal principles laid down by the Supreme
Court in Dablu Kujur (supra) and Sharif Ahmad
(supra). Following such assessment, they were
directed to propose measures, including a
comprehensive training programme for police
personnel from constables to Superintendents of
Police (S.S.P.) -aimed at enhancing their
professional competencies. The D.G. (Training)
was
further
expected
to
hold
broad
consultations with A.D.Gs, I.Gs, D.I.Gs, S.Ps.,
Additional S.Ps., and D.S.Ps. posted at various
Police Training Centres across Uttar Pradesh.
Additionally,
the
Secretary
(Law),
A.D.G.
(Prosecution), and Director (Prosecution), Uttar
Pradesh, were also expected to be consulted in
this process. (Para 25)

Upon consideration of the facts and legal
submissions, this Court is of the view that the
criminal
proceedings
has
been
manifestly
attended with mala-fide and is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking
vengeance on the petitioners and with the view
to spite them due to private and personal
grudge. The Court cannot be utilized for any
oblique purpose and where, in the opinion of
the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are
bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely
to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution
to continue. (Para 38)

Accordingly, I find merit in the submissions
advanced by Shri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior
Counsel for the applicants. The impugned
summoning order is hereby set aside.
Consequently, the proceedings arising out of
FIR Case Crime No. 8 of 2024, under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 341, 504, and
506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at
Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh, are
quashed. However, liberty is granted to the
co

## Text

_Characters 0–39,968 of 73,294. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39968 for what follows._

5 All. Subhash Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1879
the court to submit report against the
Investigating Officer of a case and how
such
a
report
qualified
the
term
'Complaint', provided under Section 195
Cr.P.C., but this Court is of the view that
the suo-moto report of the court Ahalmad
and court Moharrir cannot be considered as
a 'complaint'. Moreover, the record is also
silent that the orders and directions issued
by the Special POCSO Judge to the
Investigating Officer of case crime no. 508
of 2018 is a time bound order. The
judgement is also silent on the point
whether any date has been fixed for
compliance of the said order. Further, the
proceeding reflects that no charge under
Section 188 IPC has been framed against
the revisionist, in absence whereof the
proceedings,
conviction
and
sentence
became improper and legally not tenable
and liable to be set aside.

28. Upon considering the entire gamut
of facts, material available on record, the
legal provisions discussed here in above,
this Court is of the view that the learned
trial court has proceeded with the case dehors the procedure prescribed under the
code of criminal procedure and recorded
conviction in the offence for which the
court does not have jurisdiction to proceed.

29. The present criminal revision is
allowed. The impugned judgement and
sentence dated 20th September, 2018 is
hereby set aside.

30. No order as to costs.

31.

Before
parting
with
this
judgement,
the
Court
is
of
the
compassionate opinion to give liberty to the
revisionist
to
approach
his
pension
authority along with the website copy of
this judgement for release of his retiral
benefits, which he is not getting since last
more than six years, as is reflected from the
written argument.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1879
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Crl. Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 12482 of
2024

Subhash Chandra & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Gaurav Pundir, Sri N.I. Zafri (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Hitesh Kumar Mishra, Sri S.K.
Mishra, Sri Ayush Mishra

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section
482 - Police investigation - Quality of
investigation
-
Closure
report
filed
without forensic examination - Protest
petition
allowed
-
Quashing
of
summoning order - Systemic reform -
Directions
for
mandatory
review
of
charge-sheets
by
prosecution
-
Implementation of scientific investigation
and modern police training - Circular No.
DG/Circular-06/2018 reaffirmed - Held,
investigation must be fair, scientific, and
based
on
evidence;
mechanical,
perfunctory
or
biased
investigations
violate Articles 20 and 21 - Summoning
order
based
on
non-existent
forged
document unsustainable - Proceedings
quashed
-
Comprehensive
directions
issued
for
modernizing
police
investigation and training. (Paras 8, 9, 12,
13, 25, 33, 38 and 39)

HELD:
1880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Recently, in Sanuj Bansal v. State of U.P. & Anr 4
, the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh,
gave an undertaking that chargesheets in the
state are not filed solely on the basis of
confessional statements. However, this Court
has observed that, in practice, chargesheets are
routinely filed on a daily basis relying primarily
on the confessional statements of co-accused,
without any discovery of corroborative evidence-
an approach that is in clear derogation of the
law. (Para 12)

It is also interesting to discuss that the reports
filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. are routinely filed
in template formats without having sufficient
material enabling the Courts to come to a
reasonable
conclusion
that
the
offences
mentioned in the charge-sheet are made out
prima-facie. The C.D. may suggest sequence of
events but the C.D. cannot replace the
requirement of detailed descriptions of steps
taken by the Investigating Officer along with the
relevant facts and evidence collected during
investigation, in column-16 of the police report
filed under section 173 Cr.P.C. (Para 13)

Keeping in mind the aforesaid deliberations, vide
order dated 18.9.2024 a copy of the charge
sheet was forwarded to the Additional Chief
Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh; the Director
General of Police; and the Director General
(Training), Headquarters, with the direction to
review the same and assess whether chargesheets filed by the police are in consonance with
the legal principles laid down by the Supreme
Court in Dablu Kujur (supra) and Sharif Ahmad
(supra). Following such assessment, they were
directed to propose measures, including a
comprehensive training programme for police
personnel from constables to Superintendents of
Police (S.S.P.) -aimed at enhancing their
professional competencies. The D.G. (Training)
was
further
expected
to
hold
broad
consultations with A.D.Gs, I.Gs, D.I.Gs, S.Ps.,
Additional S.Ps., and D.S.Ps. posted at various
Police Training Centres across Uttar Pradesh.
Additionally,
the
Secretary
(Law),
A.D.G.
(Prosecution), and Director (Prosecution), Uttar
Pradesh, were also expected to be consulted in
this process. (Para 25)

Upon consideration of the facts and legal
submissions, this Court is of the view that the
criminal
proceedings
has
been
manifestly
attended with mala-fide and is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking
vengeance on the petitioners and with the view
to spite them due to private and personal
grudge. The Court cannot be utilized for any
oblique purpose and where, in the opinion of
the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are
bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely
to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution
to continue. (Para 38)

Accordingly, I find merit in the submissions
advanced by Shri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior
Counsel for the applicants. The impugned
summoning order is hereby set aside.
Consequently, the proceedings arising out of
FIR Case Crime No. 8 of 2024, under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 341, 504, and
506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at
Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh, are
quashed. However, liberty is granted to the
complainant/respondent no. 2 to approach
the police in accordance with law, in the
event
that
any
incriminating
material
surfaces
establishing
the
essential
ingredients of cheating or forgery against
the applicants. (Para 39)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Pakhandu & Ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.

2. Harkesh Singh & Ors. Vs St. of U.P

3. Anwar & Ors. Vs St. of U.P & ors.

4. Jugut Ram Vs St. of Cg., (2020) 9 SCC 520

5. Sanuj Bansal Vs St. of U.P. & Anr, SLP (Crl.)
No. 10536 of 2023

6. Dablu Kujur Vs St. of Jh., (2024) 6 SCC 758

7. R.K. Dalmia etc Vs Delhi Administration, 1962
SCC OnLine SC 83

8. Sharif Ahmed & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 726

9. Perumal Vs Janaki, (2014) 5 SCC 377
5 All. Subhash Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1881
10. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 (1) Suppl.
SCC 335

11. Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & anr. Vs
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & ors., (1988)
1 SCC 692

(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
Additional
Advocate General, assisted by Shri J.K.
Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent.

2.
Succinctly,
the
crux
of
the
allegations are 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
Additional
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, FIR bearing 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 Suarabh, 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 completed
within 18 days and the police choose to file
the closure report relying upon the
statements of the complainant, inspection
report of the place of offence, statements of
witnesses, C.C.T.V. footage and statements
of police officers on public duty, some fruit
sellers, and the statement of a stamp vendor
along with the notary public. Aggrieved by
the
closure
report,
the
complainant
preferred the protest petition against the
applicants.
The
protest
petition
was
allowed by impugned summoning order
dated 03.04.2024 and thus, the applicants
are before this Court.

5. Shri N. I. Jafri, learned Senior
Counsel for the applicants, submitted 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
erroneously 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, (iii) there is
a civil suit bearing Original Suit No. 567 of
2016 and 568 of 2016 has been pending
1882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
between the 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 are not a registered documents
and are not supported by proper seal,
signatures and stamps, and no illegal
benefit has been derived out of such
documents, and the entire case of the
complainant
has
been
based
on
a
photocopy of alleged power of attorney.

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;
one
was
allegedly signed by the complainant's father
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 has not been 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 to justify 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. After hearing both the parties, 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
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, over and above the other cases
pending investigation since long, and (iv)
the S.H.O. P.S. Civil Line shall also file the
list of such 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
5 All. Subhash Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1883
the terms of the order dated 22.04.2024 are
complied with in letter and spirit.

8. In essence, the entire futile exercise
was first undertaken by the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate and subsequently
by the Police. The learned Magistrate,
without
prima-facie
verifying
the
authenticity of the alleged forged document
or properly perusing its contents, directed
the registration of an FIR and later accepted
the protest petition. Notably, the original
copy of the purported forged power of
attorney- which is the core issue in dispute
- has never surfaced, nor has it ever been
acted upon by either party. No property
was ever transferred or even attempted to
be transferred on the basis of this alleged
forged document, yet summons were issued
to the applicants.

9. In compliance with the aforesaid
order, the S.H.O. of Police Station Civil
Lines filed an affidavit; however, it was in
complete disregard of the terms set out by
this Court. Subsequently, the S.S.P. was
directed to submit a personal affidavit, and
his affidavit was even more deficient than
that
of
the
S.H.O.
Thereafter,
the
Additional Chief Secretary (Home) was
called upon to explain why, despite this
Court having issued directions twice, the
S.S.P. failed to file a compliance affidavit
in the true letter and spirit of the Court's
order,
subsequently
the
compliance
affidavits have been filed in accordance
with Court's direction. The police had no
answer as to why priorities had been
accorded to the complainant's case by
deviating from the standard procedure. The
counter affidavit suggests, hundred of cases
are pending investigation in the police
station at P.S. Civil Lines, still, in the
present case the investigation has been
concluded within 18 days, prompting the
complainant to file protest petition. The
terms of Circular bearing no. DG/Circular06/2018 dated 19.02.2018 has not been
complied with by the Investigating Officer.

10. This is not the story of one case,
this Court's board is chocked with such
petitions in which the Investigating Officer,
despite having allegations of cheating by
impersonation, mischief, making a forged
document, forgery of record of Court or of
public register, forgery of valuable security,
forgery for the purpose of harming
reputation, creating forged document or
electronic record, using as genuine a forged
document or electronic record, making or
possessing counterfeit with intent
to
commit forgery, using a forged trade mark,
using as genuine, forged or counterfeit
currency-notes or bank notes, registration
and creation of fraud property documents
and publishing sexually explicit material in
electronic form, video voyeurism, and
breach of confidentiality, and leakage of
date by intermediatory, e-commerce fraud
like impersonation commonly known as
phishing, identity theft and offensive
massage through communication services,
but the police conducts the investigation in
old fashion way by recording the statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and files chargesheet commonly on the basis of the
disclosure statement of co-accused.

11. As the time progressed, ways and
means of committing crime has drastically
changed but the working of police, so far as
apprehending the accused and conduct of
investigation is still done by old fashion
days techniques. The worst part is, it breeds
corruption in police, chances of false
implication are greater, the real accused are
always out of the clutches of the police, the
crime could not be put to justice, the real
criminals could not brought before the
1884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court to face justice. It wastes a lot of
Court's time and ultimately results in
failure of justice.

12. Recently, in Sanuj Bansal v. State
of U.P. & Anr4, the Director General of
Police, Uttar Pradesh, gave an undertaking
that charge-sheets in the state are not filed
solely on the basis of confessional
statements. However, this Court has
observed that, in practice, charge-sheets are
routinely filed on a daily basis relying
primarily on the confessional statements of
co-accused, without any discovery of
corroborative evidence- an approach that is
in clear derogation of the law.

13. It is also interesting to discuss that
the reports filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
are routinely filed in template formats
without having sufficient material enabling
the Courts to come to a reasonable
conclusion that the offences mentioned in
the charge-sheet are made out prima-facie.
The C.D. may suggest sequence of events
but the C.D. cannot replace the requirement
of detailed descriptions of steps taken by
the Investigating Officer along with the
relevant facts and evidence collected during
investigation, in column-16 of the police
report filed under section 173 Cr.P.C.

14. The Supreme Court in Dablu
Kujur v. State of Jharkhand 5 has held
that the Investigating Officers while
submitting the charge-sheet/police report
did not comply with the requirements of the
Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The mandatory
requirement to be complied with by the
Investigating
Officer
in
the
police
report/charge-sheet as 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 investigation,
an offence appears to have been committed
by the particular person or persons, or that
no
offence
appears
to
have
been
committed. The relevant portion of Dablu
Kujur's case (supra) has been 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 completion of 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
5 All. Subhash Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1885
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.P.C.

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
afore-stated directions, and the noncompliance thereof shall be strictly viewed
by the courts concerned in which the police
reports are submitted."

15. For clarity, Section 173 of the
Code,1973 has been reproduced herein:

"173. Report of police officer on
completion of investigation.

(1) Every investigation under this
Chapter
shall
be
completed
without
unnecessary delay.

(1-A)
The
investigation
in
relation to [an offence under sections 376,
376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, section 376D,
section 376DA, section 376DB or section
376E of the Indian Penal Code shall be
completed within two months.] [Inserted by
the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009),
Section 16 (a).] from the date on which the
information was recorded by the officer-incharge of the police station.

(2) (i) As soon as it is completed,
the officer-in-charge of the police station
shall forward to a Magistrate empowered
to take cognizance of the offence on a
police report, 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]
[Inserted
by
the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of
2009), Section 16 (b).]] [or section 376E of
the Indian Penal Code of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.] [Substituted for the words "or
376D of the Indian Penal Code" by
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.

(ii)
The
officer
shall
also
communicate, in such manner as may be
1886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

(3) Where a superior officer of
police has been appointed under section
158, the report shall, in any case in which
the State Government by general or special
order so directs, be submitted through that
officer, and he may, pending the orders of
the Magistrate, direct the officer-in-charge
of the police station to make further
investigation.

(4) Whenever it appears from a
report forwarded under this section that the
accused has been released on his bond, the
Magistrate shall make such order for the
discharge of such bond or otherwise as he
thinks fit.

(5) When such report is in respect
of a case to which section 170 applies, the
police
officer
shall
forward
to
the
Magistrate along with the report -

(a) all documents or relevant
extracts thereof on which the prosecution
proposes to rely other than those already
sent to the Magistrate during investigation;

(b) the statements recorded under
section 161 of all the persons whom the
prosecution proposes to examine as its
witnesses.

(6) If the police officer is of
opinion that any part of any such statement
is not relevant to the subject-matter of the
proceeding or that its disclosure to the
accused is not essential in the interests of
justice and is inexpedient in the public
interest, he shall indicate that part of the
statement and append a note requesting the
Magistrate to exclude that part from the
copies to be granted to the accused and
stating his reasons for making such
request.

(7) Where the police officer
investigating the case finds it convenient so
to do, he may furnish to the accused copies
of all or any of the documents referred to in
sub-section (5).

(8) Nothing in this section shall
be deemed to preclude further investigation
in respect of an offence after a report under
sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the
Magistrate
and,
where
upon
such
investigation, the officer-in-charge of the
police station obtains further evidence, oral
or documentary, he shall forward to the
Magistrate a further report or reports
regarding such evidence in the form
prescribed; and the provisions of subsections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be,
apply in relation to such report or reports
as they apply in relation to a report
forwarded under sub-section (2)."

16. In R.K. Dalmia etc v. Delhi
Administration6 the Supreme Court held
that the charge-sheet is hardly a complete
or accurate thesis of prosecution case.
However, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of
Section 173, requires the office In-charge
of the police station shall forward the report
in prescribed form setting forth, the name
of the parties, the nature of information,
and the names of the persons who appear to
be acquainted with the circumstances of the
case.

17. The Supreme Court in Sharif
Ahmed and another v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr7 held that the charge-sheet,
must contain the detailed steps taken by the
investigating officer. The relevant portion
has been extracted herein below:

"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
5 All. Subhash Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1887
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 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
1888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 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 chargesheet 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."

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
5 All. Subhash Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1889
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) 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
1890 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 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 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.