# 71 6 R. N. CHATI'ERJI v. HA VILDAR KUER SINGH

- **Citation:** [1970] 3 S.C.R. 716
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-02-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1967
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, I. D. Dua
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/71-6-r-n-chati-erji-v-ha-vildar-kuer-singh-5075
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Procedure Code 1898 Section 156(3) and 190(1) (c)-Scope
of-Investigating Police Officer submitting a report of insuf!icient evidence
-If Magistrate cari direct Police to file a charge sheet.
After investigation °of a complaint filed by the Respondent against the
Appellant making certain allegations, the Deputy Superintendent of Police
who carried out the investigation. submitted a repdrt to the Deputy
Inspector·Gencral under whom the investigation was carried on, to the
effect that there was insufficient evidence against the Appellant and furthermore that the Respondent's case against the Appellant was false.
On a
"protest petition" filed by the Respondent, the Sub-Divisional Magist'rate
passed an order directing the Police to submit a charge sheet. The High
Court rejected an application in revision filed against this order
On appeal to this Court,
HELD : Allowing the appeal : The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code do not empower the Magisfrate to ask the police to submit a
charge-sheet.
Tf, however, the Magistrate is of opinion that the report
submitted by the police requires further investigation, the Magistrate may
order investigation under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Directing a further investigation is entirely different from asking the police
to submit a charge-sheet. Furthermore, section 190(1) (c) of the Criminal Procedulre Code empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance of an
offence notwithstanding a contrary opinion of the police. [718 G]
Emperor v. Nazir Ahmed 71 I.A. 203; H. N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi
[19,5] I S.C.R. ll 50; Ahliinandan !ha and Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra, A.LR.
I 968 S.C. 117: referred to.

## Text

71 6
R. N. CHATI'ERJI
v.
HA VILDAR KUER SINGH
February 19, 1970
[A. N. RAY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.]
Criminal Procedure Code 1898 Section 156(3) and 190(1) (c)-Scope
of-Investigating Police Officer submitting a report of insuf!icient evidence
-If Magistrate cari direct Police to file a charge sheet.
After investigation °of a complaint filed by the Respondent against the
Appellant making certain allegations, the Deputy Superintendent of Police
who carried out the investigation. submitted a repdrt to the Deputy
Inspector·Gencral under whom the investigation was carried on, to the
effect that there was insufficient evidence against the Appellant and furthermore that the Respondent's case against the Appellant was false.
On a
"protest petition" filed by the Respondent, the Sub-Divisional Magist'rate
passed an order directing the Police to submit a charge sheet. The High
Court rejected an application in revision filed against this order
On appeal to this Court,
HELD : Allowing the appeal : The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code do not empower the Magisfrate to ask the police to submit a
charge-sheet.
Tf, however, the Magistrate is of opinion that the report
submitted by the police requires further investigation, the Magistrate may
order investigation under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Directing a further investigation is entirely different from asking the police
to submit a charge-sheet. Furthermore, section 190(1) (c) of the Criminal Procedulre Code empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance of an
offence notwithstanding a contrary opinion of the police. [718 G]
Emperor v. Nazir Ahmed 71 I.A. 203; H. N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi
[19,5] I S.C.R. ll 50; Ahliinandan !ha and Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra, A.LR.
I 968 S.C. 117: referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
89 of 1967.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 18, 1967
of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 1965.
D. Goburdhun, for the appellant.
The respondent did not appear.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ray, J.
This is an appeal from the Judgment dated 18 November, 1967 of the High Court at Patna.
The question for consideration is whether a Sub-Divisional
llfogistrate could after submission of a final report by the· pohce
t
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
0
E
F
G
H
R. N. CHATTERJI V. H. K. SINGH (Ray, /.)
717
direct the police on what is described as a protest petition havingbeen filed by the opposite party to submit a charge-sheet.
The facts in short are that on account of an occurrence at
the platform of Muzaffarpur Railway Station on 24 March, i 964
two cases were instituted before the Railway Police.
One of these was instituted by the appellant against the respondent and the other was instituted by the respondent against
the appellant.
The appellant in the case instituted by him alleged that the
respondent wanted to entrain two of his men in an unauthorised
way in one of the compartments and the appellant objected to
the same, whereupon the respondent pulled the appellant on tho
platform and assaulted him. A charge-sheet was submitted against
the respondent in that case.
The present appeal relates to the case instituted by the respondent against the appellant on these allegations. The appellant
at the material time was a Travelling Ticket Examiner while the·
respondent was a police havildar.
The respondent alleged· that
while he was on duty at the railway platform on the relevant
date, he found a few smugglers were travelling in a particular
compartment. The respondent \'"anted to enter the compartment.
The appellant pushed him back. The appellant and three other
Ticket Examiners assaulted the respondent.
The Deputy Superintendent of Railway Police who carried
on the investigation submitted a report to the Deputy Inspector
General (C.l.D.), Crime Branch and Railways under whom theinvestigation was carried on, to the effect that th~re was insuffi.
cient evidence against the appellant and further that the respondent's case against the appellant was a palpably fal~e story about
the smugglers' and the case was therefore to be· returned a;
'TR.T. insufficient evidence".
On 2 April, 1964 the respondent filed a "protest petition"
against the final report of the police. _On I September, 1964
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate called for the case diary, supervision and progress. report of the police case as prayed for by
the respondent.
On 14 November, 1964 the Sub-Divisional·
Magistrate passed an order directing the police to submit the
charge-sheet under sections 353/379 of the Indian Penal Code.
The appellant went up before the Sessions Judge of Muzaffarpur in revision against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
and asked for a reference to the High Court.
The appeilant's
application was rejected by the Sessions Judge,
Thereafter. the·
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ l970J 3 S.C.R.
appellant filed an application in revision before the High Court
at Patna.
The appellant c,ontended that the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in asking the police to submit the charge-sheet and therefore the order dated 14 November,
1964 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate >hould be quashed.
The High Court at Patna held that calling for a charge-sheet
by a Magistrate means- taking cognizance of the. case and then
summoning the accused through the police, and, therefore, it did
not amount to interference with the police investigation.
The
High Court at Patna referred to two divergent views expressed
by the.High Courts. The views of the High Courts at Calcutta
and Madras are that the Magistrate has no such power whereas
the views of the High Courts at Bombay and Patna are to the
contrary.
The High Court at Patna did not see any reason to
depart from the view of that Court.
It has been emphasised in several decisions that it is of the
utmost importance that the judiciary should not interfere with the
police in matters which are within their province and into which
the. law imposes on. them the duty of enquiry. (See Emperor v.
Nazir Ahmed)(').
Th'is Court in the case of H. N. Rishbud v. State of De/hi(2)
said that investigation is primarily an ascertainment of facts _and
circmhstances of a case and the proceedings in an investigation
are conducted by the police officer. Chapter XlV of the Criminal
Procedure Code relates to information to the police and their
powers to investigate. The investigation carried on by the .police
results either in release of accused when evidence is deficient or
sending the case to the Magistrate when the evidence is sufficient.
It should also be remembered that when a person is released by
the police because there is not sufficient evidence to justify the
forwarding of the accused to a magistrate a bond is taken to the
effect that if and when so required he will appear before a magislrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police
·report.
The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code do not empower the magistrate to ask the police to submit a charge-sheet.
If, however, the magistrate is of opinion that the report submitted
by the police requires fqrther investigation the magistrate n1ay
order investigation under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Directing a further investigation is entirely different
from asking the police to submit a charge-sheet.
Furthermore,
section 190 ( 1 )( c) of the Criminal Procedure Code empbwers
(1) 711. A. 203!
(2) [1955] 1 S. C. R. 1150.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
R, N. CHATTERJI V. H, K. SINGH (Ray, J.)
7 I 9
the magistrate to take cognizance of an offence notwithstanding
a contrary opinion of the police.
These provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code, to which I
have referred, indicate two broad features; first, the formation of
an opinion in an investigation is left to the police; and, secondly,
the magistrate exercises judicial functions in dealing with the
report submitted by the police.
This question came up for consideration in the case of
Abhi11andan Jha and Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra(') where it was held
that it was for the police to form their opinion and the final step
in the investigation was to be taken only by the police and no
other authority.
As to the powers of the magistrate it is said
that he cannot call upon :he police to >ubmit a charge-sheet when
they have sent a report, that there is no case for sending up the
accused for trial because that would be dictating to the police
to fom1 opinion in accordance with that of the magistrate. Such
a course is not desirable. That is why the Magistrate can call for
a further investigation ..
The decision of the High Court is erroneous. The order of
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 14 November, 1964 is
quashed. The appeal is allowed.
R.K.P.S.
Appeal allowed.
0) A. I. R. 1968 S. C. 117.