# Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 363
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-05-01
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2357 of 2024
- **Bench:** Sanjiv Khanna, S.V.N. Bhatti
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sharif-ahmed-and-another-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-another-37795
- **Pages:** 43

## Headnote

Nature of chargesheets filed in some jurisdictions by the State/
Police, without stating sufficient details of the facts constituting the
offense or putting the relevant evidence on record; significance of
chargesheets for taking cognizance, summoning of the accused
etc. by the Magistrate; chargesheets and criminal proceedings
against the appellants, if to be quashed.
Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.173 - Report of police
officer on completion of investigation - Nature and standard
of evidence in chargesheet - Chargesheet when complete:
Held: The requirement of "further evidence" or a "supplementary
chargesheet" as referred to u/s.173(8) is to make additions to
a complete chargesheet and not to make up or reparate for a
chargesheet which does not fulfil requirements of s.173(2) - The
chargesheet is complete when it refers to material and evidence
sufficient to take cognizance and for the trial - The nature and
standard of evidence to be elucidated in a chargesheet should
prima facie show that an offence is established if the material and
evidence is proven - The chargesheet is complete where a case
is not exclusively dependent on further evidence and the trial can
proceed on the basis of evidence and material placed on record
with the chargesheet - This standard is not overly technical or
fool-proof, but a pragmatic balance to protect the innocent from
harassment due to delay as well as prolonged incarceration, and yet
not curtail the right of the prosecution to forward further evidence in
support of the charges - However, 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 s.173(2), and
the mandate of the State rules - It is the police report which would
enable the Magistrate to decide a course of action from the options
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
87
Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
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 s.190(1)(b) and s.204, CrPC - 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 u/s.161 of the Code and
related documents have to be enclosed with the list of witnesses
- Role played by the accused in the crime should be separately
and clearly mentioned in the chargesheet, for each of the accused
persons - Chargesheet and summoning order quashed in Cr.A.
2357 of 2024, appellants discharged - Chargesheet in SLP (Crl.)
No.9482/2021 bereft of details and particulars, summoning order
quashed. [Paras 13, 23, 24, 31, 40, 45]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.173(2), 190, 204, 251
- Chargesheet integral to the process of taking cognisance,
summoning of the accused, the issue of notice, framing of
charge:
Held: There is an inherent connect between the chargesheet
submitted under Section 173(2), cognisance which is taken
u/s.190, issue of process and summoning of the accused u/s.204,
and thereupon issue of notice u/s.251, or the charge in terms of
Chapter XVII of the Code - The details set out in the chargesheet
have a substantial impact on the efficacy of procedure at the
subsequent stages - The chargesheet is integral to the process
of taking cognisance, the issue of notice and framing of charge,
being the only investigative document and evidence available to
the court till that stage - Substantiated reasons and grounds for
an offence being made in the chargesheet are a key resource for
a Magistrate to

## Text

_Characters 0–39,793 of 91,465. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39793 for what follows._

* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 86 : 2024 INSC 363
Sharif Ahmed and Another
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
(Criminal Appeal No. 2357 of 2024)
01 May 2024
[Sanjiv Khanna* and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Nature of chargesheets filed in some jurisdictions by the State/
Police, without stating sufficient details of the facts constituting the
offense or putting the relevant evidence on record; significance of
chargesheets for taking cognizance, summoning of the accused
etc. by the Magistrate; chargesheets and criminal proceedings
against the appellants, if to be quashed.
Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.173 - Report of police
officer on completion of investigation - Nature and standard
of evidence in chargesheet - Chargesheet when complete:
Held: The requirement of "further evidence" or a "supplementary
chargesheet" as referred to u/s.173(8) is to make additions to
a complete chargesheet and not to make up or reparate for a
chargesheet which does not fulfil requirements of s.173(2) - The
chargesheet is complete when it refers to material and evidence
sufficient to take cognizance and for the trial - The nature and
standard of evidence to be elucidated in a chargesheet should
prima facie show that an offence is established if the material and
evidence is proven - The chargesheet is complete where a case
is not exclusively dependent on further evidence and the trial can
proceed on the basis of evidence and material placed on record
with the chargesheet - This standard is not overly technical or
fool-proof, but a pragmatic balance to protect the innocent from
harassment due to delay as well as prolonged incarceration, and yet
not curtail the right of the prosecution to forward further evidence in
support of the charges - However, 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 s.173(2), and
the mandate of the State rules - It is the police report which would
enable the Magistrate to decide a course of action from the options
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
87
Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
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 s.190(1)(b) and s.204, CrPC - 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 u/s.161 of the Code and
related documents have to be enclosed with the list of witnesses
- Role played by the accused in the crime should be separately
and clearly mentioned in the chargesheet, for each of the accused
persons - Chargesheet and summoning order quashed in Cr.A.
2357 of 2024, appellants discharged - Chargesheet in SLP (Crl.)
No.9482/2021 bereft of details and particulars, summoning order
quashed. [Paras 13, 23, 24, 31, 40, 45]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.173(2), 190, 204, 251
- Chargesheet integral to the process of taking cognisance,
summoning of the accused, the issue of notice, framing of
charge:
Held: There is an inherent connect between the chargesheet
submitted under Section 173(2), cognisance which is taken
u/s.190, issue of process and summoning of the accused u/s.204,
and thereupon issue of notice u/s.251, or the charge in terms of
Chapter XVII of the Code - The details set out in the chargesheet
have a substantial impact on the efficacy of procedure at the
subsequent stages - The chargesheet is integral to the process
of taking cognisance, the issue of notice and framing of charge,
being the only investigative document and evidence available to
the court till that stage - Substantiated reasons and grounds for
an offence being made in the chargesheet are a key resource for
a Magistrate to evaluate whether there are sufficient grounds for
taking cognisance, initiating proceedings, and then issuing notice,
framing charges etc. - These provisions, however, have to be read
along with the power of the police to investigate under sub-section
(8) to s.173 even when they have submitted a report u/sub-section
(2) to s.173. [Para 20]
Deprecation - Of filing of chargesheets without stating
sufficient details of the facts constituting the offense or putting
the relevant evidence on record:
88
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Held: In some states, the chargesheets merely carry a reproduction
of the details mentioned by the complainant in the FIR, and then
proceed to state whether an offence is made out, or not made
out, without any elucidation on the evidence and material relied
upon - In the format prescribed for the State of Uttar Pradesh,
column 16 requires the investigating officer to state brief facts
of the case - State of Uttar Pradesh issued circular stating that
the investigation provisions contained in the Code and the police
regulations with reference to s.173, CrPC were not 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 following the direction of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad that brief narration of the material collected during
investigation, which forms the opinion of the investigating officer,
should be mentioned in the chargesheet. [Paras 2, 30]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.190, 204 - Cognizance
of offences by Magistrates - Issue of process - "cognisance":
Held: It indicates the juncture at which the court or Magistrate takes
judicial notice of the offence with a view to initiate proceedings
in respect of such an offence - This is different from initiation of
proceedings - Rather, it is a condition precedent to the initiation of
proceedings by a Magistrate or judge - At this stage, the Magistrate
has to keep in mind the averments in the complaint or the police
report, and has to evaluate whether there is sufficient ground for
initiation of proceedings - This is not the same as the consideration
of sufficient grounds for conviction, as whether evidence is sufficient
for supporting the conviction or not, can be determined only at the
stage of trial, and not at the stage of cognisance - s.204 does not
mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issue of
summons and this is not a prerequisite for deciding the validity of
the summons - Nevertheless, the requirement of the Code is that
the summons is issued when it appears to the Magistrate that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused - Magistrate
in terms of s.204 is required to exercise his judicial discretion with a
degree of caution, even when he is not required to record reasons,
on whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding. [Paras 16, 17]
Criminal Law - Police investigation - Object and purpose -
Discussed. [Para 26]
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
89
Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Non-bailable warrants - Charge sheet filed u/ss.323, 504, 506,
120B, 308, 325, Penal Code, 1860 - Bailable warrants issued
- Application for exemption from personal appearance was
filed which was rejected - Non-bailable warrants issued -
High Court dismissed the petition u/s.482, CrPC to quash the
criminal proceedings:
Held: Non-bailable warrants cannot be issued in a routine
manner and the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed unless
necessitated by the larger interest of public and the State - While
there are no comprehensive set of guidelines for the issuance of
non-bailable warrants, this Court has observed on several occasions
that non-bailable warrants should not be issued, unless the accused
is charged with a heinous crime, and is likely to evade the process
of law or tamper/destroy evidence - Non-bailable warrants issued
in appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9482/2021 are quashed
being unsustainable. [Paras 46]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.406, 420, 503 - Offences under, when
not made out - Discussed. [Paras 36, 37, 39]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.205 - Application for
exemption from personal appearance was rejected by the
Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, recording that as bail was
not obtained till then and there is no provision for granting
exemption from personal appearance prior to obtaining bail
- Correctness:
Held: Not correct, as the power to grant exemption from personal
appearance under the Code should not be read in a restrictive
manner as applicable only after the accused has been granted
bail - The power to grant exemption from personal appearance
should be exercised liberally, when facts and circumstances
require such exemption - s.205 states that the Magistrate,
exercising his discretion, may dispense with the personal
attendance of the accused while issuing summons, and allow
them to appear through their pleader - While provisions of the
Code are considered to be exhaustive, cases arise where the
Code is silent and the court has to make such order as the
ends of justice require - In such cases, the criminal court must
act on the principle, that every procedure which is just and fair,
is understood as permissible, till it is shown to be expressly or
impliedly prohibited by law. [Para 47]
90
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Criminal Law - Civil disputes not involving criminal offence
- Duty of a Magistrate:
Held: A Magistrate needs to be cautious in examining whether the
facts of the case disclose a civil or a criminal wrong - Attempts at
initiating vexatious criminal proceedings should be thwarted early on,
as a summoning order, or even a direction to register an FIR, has
grave consequences for setting the criminal proceedings in motion
- Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims which do not involve
any criminal offence, by way of applying pressure through criminal
prosecution, should be deprecated and discouraged. [Para 44]
Case Law Cited
Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand [2024] 3 SCR 614 :
(2024) SCC Online SC 269; K. Veeraswami v. Union
of India and Others [1991] 3 SCR 189 : (1991) 3 SCC
655; H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi
[1955] 1 SCR 1150 : (1954) 2 SCC 934 - relied on.
Tara Singh v. State [1951] 1 SCR 729 : AIR 1951 SC 441;
R.K. Dalmia etc. v. Delhi Administration [1963] 1 SCR
253 : AIR 1962 SC 1821; State Through Central Bureau
of Investigation v. Hemendhra Reddy & Anr. [2023] 7
SCR 134 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 515; Bhagwant Singh
v. Commissioner of Police and Another [1985] 3 SCR
942 : (1985) 2 SCC 537; Minu Kumari and Another v.
State of Bihar and Others [2006] 3 SCR 1086 : (2006)
4 SCC 359; Bhushan Kumar and Another v. State (NCT
of Delhi) and another [2012] 2 SCR 696 : (2012) 5
SCC 424; R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [1960] 3 SCR
388 : AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana and Others v.
Bhajan Lal and Others [1992] Supp. 3 SCR 735 : 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335; Parkash Singh Badal and Another
v. State of Punjab and Others [2006] Supp. 10 SCR
197 : (2007) 1 SCC 1; Narendra Kumar Amin v. Central
Bureau of Investigation and Others (2015) 3 SCC 417;
Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai and Another
[2002] 2 SCR 889 : (2002) 5 SCC 82; Zakia Ahsan Jafri
v. State of Gujarat and Another [2022] 6 SCR 1 : 2022
INSC 653; Satya Narain Musadi and Others v. State of
Bihar (1980) 3 SCC 152; Abhinandan Jha and Others v.
Dinesh Mishra [1967] 3 SCR 668 : AIR 1968 SC 117;
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
91
Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal Nathalal, AIR 1968 SC
700; Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others
[2006] Supp. 3 SCR 704 : (2006) 6 SCC 736; Central
Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU(X), New Delhi v.
Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. Calcutta [1996] Supp. 3
SCR 360 : (1996) 5 SCC 591; Manik Taneja and Another
v. State of Karnataka and Another [2015] 1 SCR 156 :
(2015) 7 SCC 423; Deepak Gaba and Others v. State
of U.P. and Another (2023) 3 SCC 423; Inder Mohan
Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others
[2007] 10 SCR 847 : (2007) 12 SCC 1; Vikas v. State
of Rajasthan [2013] 8 SCR 208 : (2014) 3 SCC 321;
Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Another v. Rani Jethmalani
[1979] 2 SCR 378 : (1979) 4 SCC 167; Puneet Dalmia
v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad [2019]
15 SCR 134 : (2020) 12 SCC 695; Popular Muthiah v.
State Represented by Inspector of Police [2006] Supp.
3 SCR 100 : (2006) 7 SCC 296 - referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Chargesheets; Police report; Chargesheets bereft of details/
particulars; Cognizance; Summoning of the accused; Complete
chargesheet; Further evidence; Supplementary chargesheet;
Framing of charge; Issue of Process/Notice; Opinion of investigating
officer; Non-bailable warrants; Bailable warrants; Exemption from
personal appearance; Heinous crime, Evading process of law;
Tamper/destroy evidence; Civil disputes not involving criminal
offence; Civil wrong/criminal wrong.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.2357
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.01.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in CRLMA No. 960 of 2017
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2359 and 2358 of 2024
92
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Syed Mehdi Imam, Mohd Parvez Dabas, Uzmi Jamil Husain,
Mushtaque Ahmad Khan, Tabrez Ahmad, Aamir Dabas, Rauf Rahim,
Ali Asghar Rahim, Ms. Meenakshi Kalra, Saad Sharif, Pravir Singh,
Anurag Malik, S.N. Kalra, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, A.A.G., Sarvesh Singh Baghel,
Arun Pratap Singh Rajawat, Ashish Madaan, Ms. Ananya Sahu,
Ms. Saumya Sharma, Adarsh Upadhyay, Ms. Shubhali Pathak, Ms.
Pallavi Kumari, Aman Pathak, Dushyant Parashar, Dinesh Pandey,
Manu Parashar, Rajesh Srivastava, Gaurav Verma, Neeraj Dutt Gaur,
Sanjay Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Leave granted in the above matters.
2.
The concerns which have arisen during the course of hearing the
present appeals are of particular significance for meeting the ends
of criminal justice, and relate to the nature of chargesheets filed in
some jurisdictions by the state/police. For the sake of convenience, we
would divide the judgment into two parts. The first part relates to the
legal issue, that is, the contents of the chargesheet in terms of Section
173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731. The second part
deals with the factual aspects of each of the cases, and our decision.
PART I
3.
The issue in the first part relates to chargesheets being filed
without stating sufficient details of the facts constituting the offense
or putting the relevant evidence on record. In some states, the
chargesheets merely carry a reproduction of the details mentioned
by the complainant in the First Information Report2, and then
proceed to state whether an offence is made out, or not made out,
without any elucidation on the evidence and material relied upon.
On this issue, the recent judgment of this Court in Dablu Kujur
1
"Code", for short.
2
"FIR", for short.
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
93
Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
v. State of Jharkhand3 aptly crystallises the legal position in the
following words:
"17. 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:-
(i)
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 Penal Code, 1860"
(ii) 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.
(iii) When the report in respect of a case to which Section
170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the
3
[2024] 3 SCR 614 : 2024 SCC Online SC 269
94
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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.
(iv) 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 para (i) to (iii)."
4.
The decision in Dablu Kujur (supra) refers to Section 157 of the
Code which inter alia states that, if on information received or
otherwise, an officer of the police station has reason to suspect
commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156
to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to the
Magistrate empowered to take cognisance of the offence. Further,
he shall proceed in person or depute any of his subordinate officers
to proceed to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances
of the case, and if necessary, to take measures for discovery and
arrest the offender. Such report is in the nature of a preliminary
report. As per Section 169 of the Code, if it appears to the officer
in-charge of the police station that there is not sufficient evidence
or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify forwarding the accused
to the Magistrate, then the officer shall release the person if he is
in custody on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, with a
direction to such person to appear if and when so required, before
the Magistrate empowered to take cognisance of the offence from
the police report.4
4
We clarify and respectfully agree with the view expressed by this Court in Siddharth v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Another, (2022) 1 SCC 676, which has interpreted Section 170 of the Code. The word
'custody' used in the said Section does not contemplate either police or judicial custody, for otherwise
the Section would lead to unpalatable and incongruous consequences. It is observed that in normal and
ordinary course, the police should avoid arresting a person and sending him to jail, if it is possible for the
police to complete the investigation without his arrest and if every kind of cooperation is provided by the
accused to the investigating officer in completing the investigation. The word 'custody' in Section 170 has
to be interpreted liberally and merely connotes presentation of the accused by the investigating officer.
This is because personally liberty is an important aspect of the constitutional mandate. Existence of the
power of arrest, and justification for exercise thereof are two different aspects. Section 170 of the Code
does not impose an obligation on the officer in-charge to arrest each and every accused before or at the
time of filing of the chargesheet.
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
95
Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
5.
Section 170 of the Code deals with the cases where it appears to
the officer that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground to
proceed. In such an event he is required to submit a police report
or chargesheet under Section 173(2) of the Code. Elucidating on
Section 173(2) of the Code in Dablu Kujur (supra), this Court
observed:
"12. We are more concerned with Section 173(2) as we
have found that the investigating officers while submitting
the chargesheet/Police Report do not comply with the
requirements of the said provision. Though it is true that
the form of the report to be submitted under Section
173(2) has to be prescribed by the State Government
and each State Government has its own Police Manual to
be followed by the police officers while discharging their
duty, the mandatory requirements required to be complied
with by such officers in the Police Report/Chargesheet are
laid down in Section 173, more particularly sub-section
(2) thereof.
13. It may be noted that though there are various reports
required to be submitted by the police in charge of the
police station before, during and after the investigation
as contemplated in Chapter XII of Cr. P.C., it is only the
report forwarded by the police officer to the Magistrate
under sub-section (2) of Section 173 Cr. P.C. that can form
the basis for the competent court for taking cognizance
thereupon. A chargesheet is nothing but a final report of
the police officer under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. It is
an opinion or intimation of the investigating officer to the
concerned court 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.
xx
xx
xx
15. The issues with regard to the compliance of Section
173(2) Cr. P.C., may also arise, when the investigating
officer submits Police Report only qua some of the
persons-accused named in the FIR, keeping open the
96
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
investigation qua the other persons-accused, or when all
the documents as required under Section 173(5) are not
submitted. In such a situation, the question that is often
posed before the court is whether such a Police Report
could be said to have been submitted in compliance with
sub-section (2) of Section 173 Cr. P.C. In this regard, it
may be noted that in Satya Narain Musadi v. State of
Bihar, this Court has observed that statutory requirement
of the report under Section 173(2) would be complied with
if various details prescribed therein are included in the
report. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all
the documents and statements of witnesses as required
by Section 175(5)..."
6.
We would like to elaborate on certain aspects, as submission of the
chargesheet is for taking cognisance and summoning of the accused
by the Magistrate, which stages are of considerable importance and
significance.
7.
Section 173 of the Code reads:
"173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.-
(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be
completed without unnecessary delay.
(1A) The investigation in relation to an offence under
sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA,
376DB or 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall
be completed within two months from the date on which
the information was recorded by the officer in charge 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;
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
97
Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
(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).
(ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner
as may be prescribed by the State Government, the
action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the
information relating to the commission of the offence
was first given.
(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;
98
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(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 proceedings 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 sub-sections (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)".
8.
Sub-section (2) to Section 173 makes a considered departure from
sub-Section (1) to Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
18985. Sub-section (1)(a) to Section 173 of the 1898 Code had
stipulated that as soon as the investigation is completed, the officer
in-charge of the police station shall forward to the Magistrate, a report
in the form prescribed by the local government, sending forth the
names of the parties, nature of the information and the names of the
people who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the
case and state whether the accused person has been forwarded in
custody or released on a bond.
5
"1898 Code", for short.
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
99
Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
9.
We have referred to Section 173 of the 1898 Code, in view of reliance
placed during the course of hearing on the decision of this Court in
Tara Singh v. State6 and R.K. Dalmia etc. v. Delhi Administration7,
which refer and relate to the 1898 Code.
10. In Tara Singh's case (supra), the question which had arisen was
whether the challan preferred by the police was complete so as to
enable the court to take cognisance within the meaning of Section
190(1)(b) of the 1898 Code. It was held that a challan submitted
in the said case was complete except for submission of the report
of the Imperial Serologist and drawing of the sketch map of the
occurrence. In this context, reference was made to Section 173(1)
of the 1898 Code and that the report/challan should set forth, viz.
the names of the parties, nature of the information and names of
persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the
case. The cognisance, it was held, was proper.
11. In R.K. Dalmia (supra), again a reference was made to Section 173(1)
of the 1898 Code and that the chargesheet must contain name of
the parties, nature of the information and the names of persons who
appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case. These
observations were made in the context of the submission made on
behalf of the accused that there was a change in the stand of the
prosecution, which contention was rejected on several grounds, as
mentioned in paragraphs 325 and 326 of the footnoted citation.
12. It is, therefore, apparent from the language of the legislation, that
under the Code, that is, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
requirement and the manner of providing details in the chargesheet,
stand verified.
13. The question of the required details being complete must be
understood in a way which gives effect to the true intent of the
chargesheet under Section 173(2) of the Code. The requirement of
"further evidence" or a "supplementary chargesheet" as referred to
under Section 173(8) of the Code, is to make additions to a complete
chargesheet,8 and not to make up or reparate for a chargesheet
6
[1951] 1 SCR 729 : AIR 1951 SC 441
7
[1963] 1 SCR 253 : AIR 1962 SC 1821
8
State Through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Hemendhra Reddy & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 515
100
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
which does not fulfil requirements of Section 173(2) of the Code.
The chargesheet is complete when it refers to material and evidence
sufficient to take cognizance and for the trial. The nature and standard
of evidence to be elucidated in a chargesheet should prima facie
show that an offence is established if the material and evidence is
proven. The chargesheet is complete where a case is not exclusively
dependent on further evidence. The trial can proceed on the basis
of evidence and material placed on record with the chargesheet.
This standard is not overly technical or fool-proof, but a pragmatic
balance to protect the innocent from harassment due to delay as
well as prolonged incarceration, and yet not curtail the right of the
prosecution to forward further evidence in support of the charges9.
14. In the context of the present issue, it would be apt to refer to Section
190 and Section 204 of the Code, along with the provisions relating
to contents of charge, namely, Sections 211 to 213 and Section 218
of the Code, which read as under:
"190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.-(1)
Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate
of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class
specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2),
may take cognizance of any offence-
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which
constitute such offence;
(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c)
upon information received from any person
other than a police officer, or upon his own
knowledge, that such offence has been
committed.
(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any
Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance
under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his
competence to inquire into or try.
xx
xx
xx
9
See also, para 21 below on the power of the police to investigate under Section 173(8) of the Code.
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
101
Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
204. Issue of process.-(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground
for proceeding, and the case appears to be-
(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his
summons for the attendance of the
accused, or
(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant,
or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing
the accused to be brought or to appear at
a certain time before such Magistrate or (if
he has no jurisdiction himself) some other
Magistrate having jurisdiction.
(2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the
accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution
witnesses has been filed.
(3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in
writing, every summons or warrant issued under subsection (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such
complaint.
(4) When by any law for the time being in force any
process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall
be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not
paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss
the complaint.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the
provisions of Section 87.
xx
xx
xx
211. Contents of charge.-(1) Every charge under this
Code shall state the offence with which the accused is
charged.
(2) If the law which creates the offence gives it any specific
name, the offence may be described in the charge by that
name only.
(3) If the law which creates the offence does not give it
any specific name, so much of the definition of the offence
102
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
must be stated as to give the accused notice of the matter
with which he is charged.
(4) The law and section of the law against which the
offence is said to have been committed shall be mentioned
in the charge.
(5) The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a
statement that every legal condition required by law to
constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the particular
case.
(6) The charge shall be written in the language of the
Court.
(7) If the accused, having been previously convicted of any
offence, is liable, by reason of such previous conviction,
to enhanced punishment, or to punishment of a different
kind, for a subsequent offence, and it is intended to prove
such previous conviction for the purpose of affecting the
punishment which the Court may think fit to award for
the subsequent offence, the fact, date and place of the
previous conviction shall be stated in the charge; and if
such statement has been omitted, the Court may add it
at any time before sentence is passed.
212. Particulars as to time, place and person.-(1)
The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time
and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any)
against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it
was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the
accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.
(2) When the accused is charged with criminal breach
of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money or other
movable property, it shall be sufficient to specify the gross
sum or, as the case may be, describe the movable property
in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been
committed, and the dates between which the offence
is alleged to have been committed, without specifying
particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed
shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the
meaning of Section 219:
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
103
Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Provided that the time included between the first and last
of such dates shall not exceed one year.
213. When manner of committing offence must be
stated.-When the nature of the case is such that the
particulars mentioned in Sections 211 and 212 do not give
the accused sufficient notice of the matter with which he
is charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars
of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed
as will be sufficient for that purpose.
xx
xx
xx
218. Separate charges for distinct offences.-(1) For
every distinct offence of which any person is accused
there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge
shall be tried separately:
Provided that where the accused person, by an application
in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of opinion
that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby,
the Magistrate may try together all or any number of the
charges framed against such person.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the operation of
the provisions of Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223.
15. On the submission of the police report, Dablu Kujur (supra) refers to
an earlier decision of this Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner
of Police and Another10, and discusses the power and the role of
the Magistrate when he receives the police report and the options
available to him, in the following words:
"14. When such a Police Report concludes that an offence
appears to have been committed by a particular person or
persons, the Magistrate has three options: (i) he may accept
the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue
process, (ii) he may direct further investigation under subsection (3) of Section 156 and require the police to make a
further report, or (iii) he may disagree with the report and
10
[1985] 3 SCR 942 : (1985) 2 SCC 537
104
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
discharge the accused or drop the proceedings. If such
Police Report concludes that no offence appears to have
been committed, the Magistrate again has three options:
(i) he may accept the report and drop the proceedings, or
(ii) he may disagree with the report and taking the view
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take
cognizance of the offence and issue process, or (iii) he
may direct further investigation to be made by the police
under sub-section (3) of Section 156."
It is in this context that the provisions of Sections 190 and 204 of
the Code become important. Clause (a) of Section 190 states that
the Magistrate can take cognisance of an offence on receiving a
complaint of facts which constitute such offence. Clause (b) relates
to a situation where the Magistrate receives a police report carrying
such facts, i.e., facts which constitute such offence. In Minu Kumari
and Another v. State of Bihar and Others11 this Court referred to
the options available to the Magistrate on how to proceed in terms
of Section 190(1)(b) of the Code, and held:
"11...The position is, therefore, now well settled that
upon receipt of a police report under Section 173(2) a
Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence
under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code even if the police
report is to the effect that no case is made out against
the accused. The Magistrate can take into account the
statements of the witnesses examined by the police
during the investigation and take cognizance of the
offence complained of and order the issue of process
to the accused. Section 190(1)(b) does not lay down
that a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence
only if the investigating officer gives an opinion that the
investigation has made out a case against the accused.
The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by
the investigating officer and independently apply his
mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and
take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, exercise
his powers under Section 190(1)(b) and direct the issue
11
[2006] 3 SCR 1086 : (2006) 4 SCC 359
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
105
Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
of process to the accused.