Holding

The Court held that a chargesheet is complete only when it contains material and evidence sufficient to enable cognizance and trial, and that Section 173(8) allows only additions to a complete report, not remediation of an incomplete one.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined three criminal appeals arising from chargesheets filed in Uttar Pradesh that were alleged to lack sufficient factual detail and evidence under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. It considered whether a chargesheet must contain detailed facts and material evidence to enable a magistrate to take cognizance, issue summons, and frame charges, and whether supplementary reports can remedy deficiencies. The Court held that a chargesheet is complete only when it includes material sufficient for cognizance and trial, and that the requirement of "further evidence" under s.173(8) is limited to adding to a complete report, not to compensate for an incomplete one. Applying this principle, the Court quashed the chargesheets and summoning orders in the first and third appeals, discharged the accused, and set aside non‑bailable warrants, while granting anticipatory bail in the second appeal. The judgment also clarified the scope of magistrates’ powers under Sections 190, 204, 205 and emphasized a liberal approach to exemption from personal appearance, and stressed that chargesheets must reflect a thorough investigation without being a full thesis of the prosecution case.

Issues considered

Whether a chargesheet filed under Section 173(2) CrPC is required to state detailed facts and material evidence sufficient for the magistrate to take cognizance and issue process.
Whether a supplementary or "further evidence" report under Section 173(8) can cure a chargesheet that does not meet the requirements of Section 173(2).
The extent of a magistrate’s discretion under Sections 190 and 204 CrPC when the police report is deficient.
Whether non‑bailable warrants can be issued in routine cases lacking a heinous offence.
Whether exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 CrPC is limited to post‑bail situations.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898s. 173
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173, s. 173(2), s. 173(8), s. 190, s. 190(1)(b), s. 204, s. 204(1), s. 205, s. 211, s. 212, s. 213, s. 218, s. 251
Constitution of India
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 308, s. 323, s. 325, s. 406, s. 420, s. 504, s. 506

Subjects

ChargesheetsPolice reportChargesheets bereft of details/particularsCognizanceSummoning of the accusedComplete chargesheetFurther evidenceSupplementary chargesheetFraming of chargeIssue of Process/NoticeOpinion of investigating officerNon-bailable warrantsBailable warrantsExemption from personal appearanceHeinous crimeEvading process of lawTamper/destroy evidenceCivil disputes not involving criminal offenceCivil wrong/criminal wrong

Judgment

[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
* Author
[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 Report 2, 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 sub-
section (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 sub-
section (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. The Magistrate is not bound
in such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in
Sections 200 and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance
of a case under Section 190(1)(a) though it is open to
him to act under Section 200 or Section 202 also. (See
India Carat (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(1989) 2 SCC
132 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 306 : AIR 1989 SC 885] .)
12. The informant is not prejudicially affected when the
Magistrate decides to take cognizance and to proceed
with the case. But where the Magistrate decides that
sufficient ground does not subsist for proceeding further
and drops the proceeding or takes the view that there
is material for proceeding against some and there are
insufficient grounds in respect of others, the informant
would certainly be prejudiced as the first information
report lodged becomes wholly or partially ineffective.
This Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police held
that where the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance
and to drop the proceeding or takes a view that there is
no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the
persons mentioned in the first information report, notice
to the informant and grant of opportunity of being heard
in the matter becomes mandatory. As indicated above,
there is no provision in the Code for issue of a notice in
that regard.
13. We may add here that the expressions “charge-sheet”
or “final report” are not used in the Code, but it is understood
in Police Manuals of several States containing the rules
and the regulations to be a report by the police filed under
Section 170 of the Code, described as a “charge-sheet”.
In case of reports sent under Section 169 i.e. where there
is no sufficiency of evidence to justify forwarding of a case
to a Magistrate, it is termed variously i.e. referred charge,
final report or summary. Section 173 in terms does not
refer to any notice to be given to raise any protest to the
report submitted by the police. Though the notice issued
under some of the Police Manuals states it to be a notice
under Section 173 of the Code, there is nothing in Section
173 specifically providing for such a notice.”
106 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

16. This Court in Bhushan Kumar and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi)
and Another12 while referring to Sections 190 and 204 of the Code
has observed that the expression “cognisance” in Section 190 merely
means “becoming aware of”, and when used with reference to a
court or a judge it connotes “to take notice of judicially”. 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. This aspect is important and will be subsequently referred
to when we examine the decision of this Court in K. Veeraswami v.
Union of India and Others13, and the observations therein which
have been referred to on several occasions in other judgments.
17. Section 204 of the Code 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. Summons is issued to the person against whom
the legal proceedings have commenced. Wilful disobedience is liable
to be punished under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 186014.
As a sequitur, keeping in mind both the language of Section 204 of
the Code and the penal consequences, the Magistrate is mandated
to form an opinion as to whether there exists sufficient ground for
summons to be issued. While deciding whether summons is to be
issued to a person, the Magistrate can take into consideration any
prima facie improbabilities arising in the case. The parameters on
which a summoning order can be interfered with are well settled by
the decision of this court in Bhushan Kumar (supra). The Magistrate

12 [2012] 2 SCR 696 : (2012) 5 SCC 424
13 [1991] 3 SCR 189 : (1991) 3 SCC 655
14 “IPC”, for short.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 107

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

in terms of Section 204 of the Code 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. Proceedings initiated by a criminal court are generally
not interfered with by High Courts, unless necessary to secure the
ends of justice.15
18. The decision in Bhushan Kumar (supra) also refers to Section 251
of the Code, which is a stage post appearance of the accused, and
observes:
“20. It is inherent in Section 251 of the Code that when
an accused appears before the trial court pursuant to
summons issued under Section 204 of the Code in a
summons trial case, it is the bounden duty of the trial
court to carefully go through the allegations made in the
charge-sheet or complaint and consider the evidence to
come to a conclusion whether or not, commission of any
offence is disclosed and if the answer is in the affirmative,
the Magistrate shall explain the substance of the accusation
to the accused and ask him whether he pleads guilty
otherwise, he is bound to discharge the accused as per
Section 239 of the Code.”
19. Sections 211 to 213 and Section 218 of the Code deal with the
contents of the charge. The object and purpose of these provisions
is to bring the nature of allegations against the accused to his
notice. These allegations have to be proved and established by
leading evidence. The accused should not be taken by surprise or
be unbeknownst so as to cause prejudice to him. The provisions
of the Code also prescribe how to interpret the words used in the
charge in terms of Section 214 of the Code, the effect of defects in
the charge in terms of Section 215 of the Code, the power of the
court to alter the charge and recall of the witnesses when a charge
is altered in terms of Sections 216 and 217 of the Code.
20. There is an inherent connect between the chargesheet submitted
under Section 173(2) of the Code, cognisance which is taken under
Section 190 of the Code, issue of process and summoning of the

15 R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
108 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

accused under Section 204 of the Code, and thereupon issue of
notice under Section 251 of the Code, 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.
21. These provisions, however, have to be read along with the power of
the police to investigate under sub-section (8) to Section 173 of the
Code even when they have submitted a report under sub-section
(2) to Section 173 of the Code. The police also has the power to
produce additional documents and evidence, as has been held
by this Court in Parkash Singh Badal and Another v. State of
Punjab and Others16; Narendra Kumar Amin v. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Others17; and Central Bureau of Investigation
v. R.S. Pai and Another18.
22. Recently a three Judge Bench of this Court in Zakia Ahsan Jafri v.
State of Gujarat and Another19, has observed:
“11. This Court in Dayal Singh noted that the investigating
officer is obliged to act as per the Police Manual and
known canons of practice while being diligent, truthful
and fair in his/her approach and investigation. It has been
noted in the reported decision that an investigating officer
is completely responsible and answerable for the manner
and methodology adopted in completing his investigation.
Concededly, upon completion of investigation, the
investigating officer is obliged to submit report setting
out prescribed details, to the Magistrate empowered

16 [2006] Supp. 10 SCR 197 : (2007) 1 SCC 1
17 (2015) 3 SCC 417
18 [2002] 2 SCR 889 : (2002) 5 SCC 82
19 [2022] 6 SCR 1 : 2022 INSC 653
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 109

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

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
110 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

there is ground for “presuming” that the accused “has”
committed an offence, as alleged. (It is not, “may” have
or “likely” to have committed an offence, but a ground
for presuming that he has committed an offence). The
Magistrate in the process may have to give due weightage
to the opinion of the investigating officer. If such is to be
the eventual outcome of the final report presented by
the investigating officer, then there is nothing wrong if he
applies the same standard to form an opinion about the
materials collected during the investigation and articulate
it in the report submitted under Section 173 of the Code.
It may be useful to refer to the decisions adverted to in
Afroz Mohd. Hasanfata including in the case of Ramesh
Singh and I.K. Nangia.

xx xx xx
63. Needless to underscore that every information coming
to the investigating agency must be regarded as relevant.
However, the investigating agency is expected to make
enquiries regarding the authenticity of such information and
after doing so must collect corroborative evidence in support
thereof. In absence of corroborative evidence, it would be
merely a case of suspicion and not pass the muster of
grave suspicion, which is the pre-requisite for sending the
suspect for trial. This is the mandate in Section 173(2)(i)(d)
of the Code, which postulates that the investigating officer
in his report must indicate whether any offence appears to
have been committed and if so, by whom. The opinion of
the investigating officer formed on the basis of materials
collected during the investigation/enquiry must be given due
weightage. That would only be the threshold, to facilitate
the concerned Court to take cognizance of the crime and
then frame charge if it is of the opinion that there is ground
for presuming that the accused has committed an offence
triable under Chapter XIX of the Code.”
23. In K. Veeraswami (supra), 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:
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 111

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

“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 charge-sheet 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.”
112 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

The latter portion of the aforesaid paragraph, referring to the details
of the offence and the requirement for them to be proved in order
to bring home the guilt of the accused at the later stage (the stage
of trial) by adducing acceptable evidence, has to be understood
in the context that the chargesheet need not elaborately evaluate
the evidence, as the process of evaluation is a matter of trial. This
does not mean that the chargesheet should not disclose or refer
to the facts as to meet the requirements of Section 173(2) of the
Code, and the mandate of the State rules. Further, the earlier
portion of the same paragraph, while referring to the opinion of
the investigating officer, does so to demonstrate the significance
of the opinion of the investigating officer at this stage. However,
this does not preclude the Magistrate from exercising her powers
in adopting an approach independent from such opinion, as has
been held by this Court in Bhagwant Singh (supra) and Minu
Kumari (supra).
24. It is the police report 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)
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 113

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

whether any offence appears to have been committed
and, if so, by whom (e) whether the accused has been
arrested; (f) whether he had been released on his bond
and, if so, whether with or without sureties; and (g) whether
he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170. As
observed by this Court in Satya Narain Musadi v. State of
Bihar that the statutory requirement of the report under
Section 173(2) would be complied with if the various
details prescribed therein are included in the report.
This report is an intimation to the magistrate that upon
investigation into a cognizable offence the Investigating
Officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for
the court to inquire into the offence and the necessary
information is being sent to the court. In fact, the report
under Section 173(2) purports to be an opinion of the
Investigating Officer that as far as he is concerned he
has been able to procure sufficient material for the trial
of the accused by the court. The report is complete if it
is accompanied with all the documents and statements of
witnesses as required by Section 175(5). Nothing more
need be stated in the report of the Investigating Officer.
It is also not necessary that all the details of the offence
must be stated. The details of the offence are required
to be proved to bring home the guilt to the accused at
a later stage i.e. in the course of the trial of the case by
adducing acceptable evidence.
This paragraph examines the contents of the chargesheet and
on elaboration of the same holds that it is in accordance with the
terms of Section 173(2) of the Code as well as the provisions of the
penal enactment. In furtherance of this, reference is made to Satya
Narain Musadi and Others v. State of Bihar20, 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,

20 (1980) 3 SCC 152
114 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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 Delhi21, 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. This Court in its decision
in Abhinandan Jha and Others v. Dinesh Mishra22 states that
the submission of the chargesheet or the final report is dependent
on the nature of opinion formed, which is the final step in the
investigation.
28. The final report has to be prepared with these aspects in mind and
should show with sufficient particularity and clarity, the contravention
of the law which is alleged. When the report complies with the said
requirements, the court concerned should apply its mind whether
or not to take cognisance and also proceed by issuing summons
to the accused. While doing so, the court will take into account the
statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code and
the documents placed on record by the investigating officer.
29. In case of any doubts or ambiguity arising in ascertaining the facts
and evidence, the Magistrate can, before taking cognisance, call
upon the investigating officer to clarify and give better particulars,
order further investigation, or even record statements in terms of
Section 202 of the Code.
30. Our attention has been drawn to the format prescribed for the State
of Uttar Pradesh, which by column 16 requires the investigating
officer to state brief facts of the case. In addition, the State of Uttar
Pradesh has issued a circular dated 19.09.2023, which refers to an
earlier circular bearing No. 59 of 2016 dated 20.10.2016, and states

21 [1955] 1 SCR 1150 : (1954) 2 SCC 934
22 [1967] 3 SCR 668 : AIR 1968 SC 117
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 115

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

that the investigation provisions contained in the Code and the police
regulations with reference to Section 173 of the Code are not being
consistently complied with and followed by the investigating officers
and the supervising officers. The need to provide lead details of
the offence in the chargesheet is mandatory as it is in accord with
paragraph 122 of the police regulations. Similar directions were
issued on 09.09.2022 following the direction of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad that brief narration of the material collected
during investigation, which forms the opinion of the investigating
officer, should be mentioned in the chargesheet.
31. Therefore, the investigating officer must make clear and complete
entries of all columns in the chargesheet so that the court can clearly
understand which crime has been committed by which accused and
what is the material evidence available on the file. Statements under
Section 161 of the Code and related documents have to be enclosed
with the list of witnesses. The role played by the accused in the crime
should be separately and clearly mentioned in the chargesheet, for
each of the accused persons.
PART II
32. As we turn to the second part of our judgment, it would be appropriate
to lead our decision in each case with a brief overview of its pertinent
facts:
A. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1074/2017
● The appellants have been involved in a drawn-out litigation
with several parties over the ownership of Property No.
80-A, 23,072 sq. ft., forming a part of Khasra no. 1016/647
and 645, situated within Chandrawli/Shahdara, now in
Abadi, at Circular Road, Shahdara, Delhi- 110032.23
● Appellant No.2 – Sharif Ahmad and Appellant No.3 – Anwar
Ahmad (since deceased), purchased a part in the subject
property on behalf of their partnership firm Dream Land &
Co., while Appellant No.1 – Vakil Ahmad (since deceased)
had done so in his individual capacity.

23 “subject property”, for short.
116 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

● To avoid prolixity, we would refrain from setting out the
facts of the litigation in detail.
● The challenge before us relates to the First Information
Report No. 108/2016 dated 23.05.2016, filed by Respondent
No.2/complainant - Mohd. Iqbal, under Sections 420, 406
and 506 IPC at police station Hafizpur, Hapur, U.P. against
the appellants. The FIR stated that the appellants had
agreed to sell the subject property to Respondent No.
2 and had received part payment for the registry of the
subject property. However, the appellants did not register
the property and also failed to refund the concerned amount
to Respondent No. 2.
● The Police recorded the statements of Respondent No.2,
and the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code.
● According to these statements, the appellants had refused
to refund the amount paid by Respondent No. 2 despite
repeated requests to do the same.
● A complaint dated 03.09.2016 was filed against Respondent
No. 2 at Police Station Tis Hazari by relatives of the
appellants on account of receiving threats to their life.
● The appellants challenged FIR No. 108/2016 in W.P.
(Cr.) No.20221/2016 before the Allahabad High Court
and sought quashing of the proceedings. By an order
dated 15.09.2016, the High Court stayed the arrest of the
appellant until filing of the chargesheet.
● On 24.10.2016, a chargesheet was filed against the
appellants under Sections 405 and 506 IPC.
● The appellants approached the Allahabad High Court
in Cr. M.A. No. 960/2017 seeking the quashing of the
chargesheet and of proceedings in Case No. 410/2016.
The appellants submitted that the chargesheet is vague,
filed without proper investigation, and fails to make out
any offence.
● The Allahabad High Court dismissed the application for
quashing of the chargesheet through the impugned order
dated 12.01.2017.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 117

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

● Hence, the appellants have filed the present appeal.
33. The FIR as registered, on the question of intimidation states that on
19.03.2016 the appellants had flatly refused to refund the money and
had told Respondent No. 2 that they can do whatever they want.
They had threatened the entire family of the complainant.
34. The chargesheet submitted by the investigating officer in the present
case, under column 16 referring to the facts of the case, reads as
under:
“Sir, the above said case was got registered by the
complainant Shri Iqbal on 23/5/16 at this police station,
the investigation of which handed over to me S.I., the
investigation of which done by me S.I. and from all the
investigation till now, statement of the complainant,
statement of the witnesses and inspection of place of
occurrence, the deal of plot measuring 2600 which is at
behind Sadar Police Station was finalized by the accused
persons with the complainant and his partner Surender
Sharma for 4 crore, for which by not getting executed
the registry of the same at the time of the complainant
and after receiving a sum of Rs. 1 crore of his partner
Surender Sharma as earnest money, selling of plot to
Kusum Jain and D.K. Jain, by not refunding a sum of
Rs. 1 crore of the complainant and his partner, grabbing
by doing breach of trust, making pretexts on demanding
again and again and the threat to kill, hence the offence
under section 406, 506 I.P.C. is thoroughly proved upon
the accused persons Sharif Ahmed, Anwar Ahmed, Vakil
Ahmed, Aadil Ahmed, the occurrence of section 420 I.P.C.
is not found, hence the challan of the accused persons, by
charge sheet No. 153/16 is filled in the court, it is prayed
that punishment may be given by calling the proof.”
35. A reading thereof would indicate that it refers to the complaint made
by Respondent No. 2 – Iqbal on 23.05.2016 relating to the deal of
a plot in respect of which part consideration was paid as earnest
money. But thereafter, the appellants had sold the plot and were not
refunding the earnest money and by doing so have committed breach
of trust under Section 406 of the IPC. It also refers to the alleged
pretexts being made by the appellants on money being demanded
118 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

and a threat to kill being extended. It is also recorded that an offence
under Section 506 has been proved to have been committed. At the
same time, the chargesheet states that no offence under Section
420 of the IPC is found to have been committed.
36. An offence under Section 406 of the IPC requires entrustment, which
carries the implication that a person handing over any property or
on whose behalf the property is handed over, continues to be the
owner of the said property. Further, the person handing over the
property must have confidence in the person taking the property to
create a fiduciary relationship between them. A normal transaction
of sale or exchange of money/consideration does not amount to
entrustment.24 Clearly, the charge/offence of Section 406 IPC is not
even remotely made out.
37. The chargesheet states that the offence under Section 420 is not
made out. The offence of cheating under Section 415 of the IPC
requires dishonest inducement, delivering of a property as a result
of the inducement, and damage or harm to the person so induced.
The offence of cheating is established when the dishonest intention
exists at the time when the contract or agreement is entered, for the
essential ingredient of the offence of cheating consists of fraudulent
or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him to deliver
any property, to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or
omit if he had not been deceived. As per the investigating officer,
no fraudulent and dishonest inducement is made out or established
at the time when the agreement was entered.
38. An offence of criminal intimidation arises when the accused
intendeds to cause alarm to the victim, though it does not matter
whether the victim is alarmed or not. The intention of the accused
to cause alarm must be established by bringing evidence on record.
The word ‘intimidate’ means to make timid or fearful, especially: to
compel or deter by or as if by threats.25 The threat communicated
or uttered by the person named in the chargesheet as an accused,
should be uttered and communicated by the said person to threaten

24 See Section 405 of the IPC and judgments of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal Nathalal AIR
1968 SC 700; Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006) 6 SCC 736; Central Bureau of
Investigation, SPE, SIU(X), New Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta (1996) 5 SCC 591
25 “intimidate”. Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2024.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 119

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

the victim for the purpose of influencing her mind. The word ‘threat’
refers to the intent to inflict punishment, loss or pain on the other.
Injury involves doing an illegal act.
39. This Court in Manik Taneja and Another v. State of Karnataka
and Another 26, had referred to Section 506 which prescribes
punishment for the offence of ‘criminal intimidation’ as defined in
Section 503 of the IPC, to observe that the offence under Section
503 requires that there must be an act of threating another person
with causing an injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the
person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
This threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person
threatened or to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or
omit to do an act which he is entitled to do. Mere expression of any
words without any intent to cause alarm would not be sufficient to
bring home an offence under Section 506 of the IPC. The material
and evidence must be placed on record to show that the threat
was made with an intent to cause alarm to the complainant, or to
cause them to do, or omit to do an act. Considering the statutory
mandate, offence under Section 506 is not shown even if we accept
the allegation as correct.
40. In view of the aforesaid position, we quash the chargesheet and
the summoning order. The appellants are discharged. We clarify
that the observations made above will have no bearing on the civil
proceedings, if any, already initiated or which may be initiated in
future by the respondent/complainant.
B. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5419/2022
● On 26.06.2019 the complainant – Wakeel Ahmad filed a
complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
alleging that the accused persons, including the appellant
– Imran, routinely take money on the pretext of bainama
of property, and subsequently deny entering into such
agreement and receiving any money.
● The court allowed the said complaint and ordered the
concerned Police Station to register the complaint under
Sections 420 and 120B IPC. FIR No. 519/2019 dated

26 [2015] 1 SCR 156 : (2015) 7 SCC 423
120 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

26.07.2019 was registered at Police Station Chandpur,
Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh. The complainant also stated that the
accused persons had threatened the complainant against
pursuing legal action against them.
● By an order dated 19.09.2019, the High Court partly allowed
the appellant’s anticipatory bail application and directed
the police not to arrest the appellant till the submission
of the chargesheet.
● Chargesheet No. 582/2019 dated 18.10.2019 was filed,
submitting that charges under Sections 420 and 120B IPC
are established. The chargesheet lists the details of the
accused as mentioned in the FIR and the relevant column
relating to brief facts in the chargesheet reads:
“Requesting to the Hon’ble Court is that on
28.07.2019 the Hon’ble Court ordered under
section 156(3) Cr. P.C. for registering a FIR
No. 519/2019 under the section of 420, 120B
IPC against
1. Ziyauddin S/o Gyasudding aged about
70 years
2. Zamaluddin S/o Gyasuddin aged about
65 years
3. Kamaluddin S/o Gyasuddin aged about
50 years
4. Rahisuddin S/o. Unknown
5. Imran aged about 36 years S/o Zamaluddin
6. Kahsif S/o Zamaluddin aged about 31
all are residence of Mohalla Ktarmal,
kasba Chandpur, Chanpur, Bijnor, UP.
the crime under section 420, 120B IPC
is proved against the Ziyauddin S/o
Gyasudding, Zamaluddin S/o Gyasuddin,
Kamaluddin S/o Gyasuddin, Rahisuddin
S/o Unknown, Imran S/o Zamaluddin,
Kahsif S/o Zamaluddin.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 121

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

Hence, filing this charge sheet before the
Hon’ble court and requesting to this Hon’ble
court to punish the all the accused.”
● By an order dated 10.05.2021, the Allahabad High
Court granted interim anticipatory bail to the appellant
till 03.01.2022, in terms of the conditions mentioned in
the order, and observed that the appellant herein may
approach the High Court again if so advised, in case of
a change in circumstances.
● On 23.03.2022, Allahabad High Court dismissed the
Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.2235/2022
filed by the appellant, on the grounds of non-bailable
warrants having been issued against the appellant and
the chargesheet having been filed.
● Hence, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
41. We have already referred to the facts and also to the ingredients
of the offence under Section 420 IPC. The assertions made in the
FIR allege that the accused are frauds who have taken bainama
(earnest money on the property), but thereafter are making excuses.
The complainant had visited the accused at their house who had
then threatened them to implicate them in false cases. They denied
having received the money.
42. We allow the present appeal and direct that in the event of the
appellant being arrested, he shall be released on bail by the arresting
officer/investigating officer/trial court on the terms and conditions to
be fixed by the trial court.
43. However, what is surprising and a matter of concern in the present
case, is that the police had initially rightly not registered the FIR, which
had prompted the complainant to approach the Court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandpur, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh, alleging
that he is an honest and respected person in the society and is well
established in business, while the accused are fraudulent individuals.
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had subsequently ordered
for the FIR to be registered on the basis of the written complaint.
44. We would also like to emphasise on the need for a Magistrate to
be cautious in examining whether the facts of the case disclose a
civil or a criminal wrong. Attempts at initiating vexatious criminal
122 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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.27 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.28
C. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9482/2021
● The complainant and Respondent No. 2 herein – Rajesh
Wangvelu made a written complaint to the Station
Officer, Police Station Aliganj, Lucknow, alleging that on
23.12.2019 at about 12:15 p.m. two officers of the National
Research Laboratory for Conservation of Cultural Property,
Lucknow29, namely, Bachhan Singh Rawat, Security Officer
and Mahendra Kumar, Division Clerk/Caretaker had
attacked him with a helmet and lathi, and had threatened
to kill him. At about 1:12 p.m. FIR No. 556/2019 dated
23.12.2019 was registered against Bachhan Singh Rawat
and Mahendra Kumar under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC.
● A statement under Section 161 of the Code was also
recorded, where Rajesh Wangvelu stated that he was
discriminated against for belonging to a different State. He
had done nothing wrong and did not allow his subordinates
to do anything wrong, for which reason Bachhan Singh
Rawat and Mahender Kumar remained angry with him. He
added in his statement that the appellant – Manager Singh
was also present during this altercation. He had abused
him and stated – “maaro sale ko, bahut imandaar banta
hai” i.e., “hit him, he wants to be too honest”. Bachhan
Singh Rawat and Mahendra Kumar had hit him till he
fainted. When he regained consciousness, they had left
the place.
● Manager Singh, as the Director General of the NRLC,
claims that he had noticed several discrepancies and

27 Deepak Gaba and Others v. State of U.P. and Another, (2023) 3 SCC 423
28 Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006) 6 SCC 736
29 “NRLC”, for short.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 123

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

administrative errors committed by Rajesh Wangvelu,
who was working as the Library and Information Officer.
● After issuing show-cause notices to Rajesh Wangvelu and
considering his response, the Ministry of Culture issued a
letter dated 02.08.2019, under the signature of appellant,
indicating that Rajesh Wangvelu prima facie appeared to
have committed temporary embezzlement of Rs. 38,338/-
and for which action should be taken.
● A decision to shift the library was also confirmed by a
committee, to which Rajesh Wangvelu had expressed
his displeasure. On the day of shifting, i.e. 23.12.2019, a
physical altercation occurred between Rajesh Wangvelu
and the officers Bachhan Singh Rawat and Mahendra
Kumar.
● Manager Singh has relied upon written communication
of Bachhan Singh Rawat in which he has stated that
on 23.12.2019 at about 12:00 noon, he was informed
by Mahendra Kumar, that Rajesh Wangvelu had taken
some items in his bag without the gate pass. Information
in this regard had been given to Manager Singh and the
Vigilance Officer. When Bachhan Singh Rawat had tried
to frisk Rajesh Wangvelu, he had, in presence of another
staff member Dr. Neeta Nigam, threatened Bachhan Singh
Rawat and Mahendra Kumar with dire consequences and
had sprayed chemical on their faces. Rajesh Wangvelu
had assaulted them and thereupon had run away from
the spot. On 23.12.2019 Manager Singh had accordingly
written a letter to the Station Officer of Aliganj Police
Station, informing him of the incident. Manager Singh
is also relying on the communication dated 26.12.2019
written by him to the Director General of Police, Lucknow,
and the communication dated 06.01.2020 by the appellant
Manager Singh to the sub-inspector, and inquiry officer
Police Station Aliganj.
● Rajesh Wangvelu was examined at 01:30 p.m., and his
medical legal report dated 23.12.2019 refers to six injuries
which have been found to be caused by a hard and
blunt object. The injuries were simple. Rajesh Wangvelu,
124 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

however, also relies upon a report dated 24.12.2019,
obtained by a private diagnostic centre, which states that
there was a fracture at the head of the fifth metacarpal
bone of the left hand.
● Manager Singh filed a petition for quashing of the
proceedings arising out of FIR No. 556/2019 before the
Allahabad High Court. He was given the benefit of arrest
till the filing of the chargesheet, by an order of the High
Court dated 09.01.2020.
● On 04.02.2020, a chargesheet was filed with an addition
of Sections 308, 325 and 120B IPC, and impleading
Manager Singh as an accused. The chargesheet under
Section 173 of the Code, submitted before the court in
the present case, under the column relating to brief facts
of the case reads as under:
“Sir, the aforesaid case was registered on
the basis of written report/complaint of the
complainant of the case and the investigation
was being done by the S.I. Shri Ramchandra
Mishra. On 15.01.2020 I have received the
investigation. During the investigation, on the
basis of the statement of the complainant
as well as on the basis of medical report,
section 120B/308/325 IPC was added and
the name of accused Manager Singh has
come into light, in which Bachan Sing Rawat
and Mahendra Kumar were sent in judicial
custody on 24.12.19. Till the filing of charge
sheet, the accused Manager Singh has been
granted stay of arrest by the court. The offences
under Section 323/504/506/120B/308/325 IPC
are duly proved against the accused Bachan
Singh Rawat, Mahendra Kumar and Manger
Singh. Therefore, charge sheet is filed against
the accused Bachan Singh Rawat, Mahendra
Kumar and Manager Singh under Section
323/504/506/120B/308/325 IPC before the
Hon’ble Court. It is requested to summon the
proof and punish and accused.”
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 125

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

● On the chargesheet being submitted in the court of the
Magistrate, order dated 10.02.2020 was passed recording
that the chargesheet has been submitted for offences under
323, 504, 506, 120B, 308, 325 of the IPC against Bachhan
Singh Rawat, Mahendra Kumar and Manager Singh. The
order, taking cognisance and issuing summons, reads:
“The chargesheet was filed under the offence number
556/2019, Section 323, 504, 506, 120B, 308, 325,
IPC, Police Station Aliganj against the accused
Bachan Singh Rawat, Mahendra Kumar and Manager
Singh. Reviewed all prosecution forms. The grounds
for taking cognizance are sufficient. Cognizance is
taken.
ORDER
Register the case. The copies are ready attached.
Accused Bachan Singh Rawat and Mahendra Kumar
are out on bail. Jamanatnama is attached in the file
and the arrest of the accused Manager Singh was
a stay on the arrest till the filing of the chargesheet
in the sequence of the order of the Hon’ble High
Court, Miscellaneous Bench – 262/2020 order dated
09-01-20. Summons issued against the accused.
Giving copy for paperwork. Attendance should be
presented on 01-03-2020.”
● It appears that the matter was taken up for hearing
by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on
18.02.2021, which records the presence of the counsel for
Rajesh Wangvelu and that application for exemption from
personal appearance was moved on behalf of Bachhan
Singh Rawat and Mahendra Kumar. Manager Singh was
absent and bailable warrants were issued against him,
and he was required to appear on 04.03.2021.
● On 04.03.2021, an application for exemption from personal
appearance was moved on behalf of Manager Singh on
the ground that he had gone out for personal reasons
where he had taken ill. This application was rejected
on 04.03.2021 by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate,
recording that Manager Singh had not obtained bail till
126 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

then and there is no provision for granting exemption from
personal appearance prior to obtaining bail. Therefore,
non-bailable warrants have been issued against him.
● Another order dated 04.03.2021 records that bailable
warrants were issued against Manager Singh but he had
remained absent. To ensure his personal appearance
non-bailable warrants were issued against him.
● By the impugned order dated 16.03.2021, the High Court
had dismissed the petition filed by Manager Singh under
Section 482 of the Code, to quash the criminal proceedings
against him.
● On 03.09.2021, the High Court granted a further period of
10 days’ time to Manager Singh to surrender. He did not
surrender and filed another application seeking extension
of time to surrender.
● On 03.12.2021, Manager Singh filed the present appeal
challenging correctness of the impugned order dated
16.03.2021.
● Rajesh Wangvelu has, before us, referred to FIR No.
224 of 2020 registered under Sections 406, 419, 420,
467, 468, 471 IPC on account of certain contracts having
been awarded by Manager Singh, Dr. Neeta Nigam,
Bachhan Singh Rawat, Mahendra Kumar, to M/s. V.K.
Singh Construction Company, Punjab, in which case a
final report has been submitted to the court. He has also
referred to an office order dated 03.09.2021 passed by
the Government of India, Ministry of Culture, terminating
services of Manager Singh with immediate effect.
45. Having regard to the facts of the present case, including the
chargesheet as filed, which in our opinion is bereft of all details and
particulars, we quash the summoning order against Manager Singh.
The Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, would re-examine the entire
matter in terms of the observations made in the present judgment
and thereupon proceed in accordance with law.
46. We, however, would allow the present appeal to the extent that
the non-bailable warrants issued against Manager Singh are
unsustainable and should be quashed. It is a settled position of law
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 127

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

that non-bailable warrants cannot be issued in a routine manner
and that 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.30
47. Further, the observation that there is no provision for granting
exemption from personal appearance prior to obtaining bail, is not
correct, as the power to grant exemption from personal appearance
under the Code31 should not be read in a restrictive manner as
applicable only after the accused has been granted bail. This Court
in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Another v. Rani Jethmalani32
held that the power to grant exemption from personal appearance
should be exercised liberally, when facts and circumstances require
such exemption.33 Section 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.34
48. It is also directed that Manager Singh shall be released on bail by
the arresting officer/ investigating officer/trial court on the terms
and conditions to be fixed by the trial court in connection with the
chargesheet originating from FIR No. 556 of 2019. The direction
given by the High Court in its order dated 09.01.2020 restricting the
grant of anticipatory bail till the filing of the chargesheet is accordingly

30 Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others (2007) 12 SCC 1; Vikas v. State
of Rajasthan (2014) 3 SCC 321
31 Section 205 of the Code. Also see, Section 317 of the Code.
32 [1979] 2 SCR 378 : (1979) 4 SCC 167
33 See also, Puneet Dalmia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad (2020) 12 SCC 695
34 See, Popular Muthiah v. State Represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 7 SCC 296 and earlier
judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Rahim Sheikh (1923) 50 Cal 872, 875
128 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

modified. We have issued the said direction in exercise of power under
Article 142 read with Article 136 of the Constitution of India in view of
the peculiar facts of the present case, including issue of non-bailable
warrants etc. by the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate.
CONCLUSION
49. In view of the aforesaid discussion,
(i) the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1074/2017 preferred by
Sharif Ahmed and Adil is allowed and the criminal proceedings
are quashed;
(ii) the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5419/2022 is allowed with
the direction that in the event of being arrested, the appellants
– Imran and Kamaluddin shall be released on anticipatory bail
in connection with the chargesheet under Sections 420 and
120B IPC arising out of FIR No. 519/2019 dated 26.07.2019
registered at Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor, Uttar
Pradesh on terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court.
In addition, the appellants – Imran and Kamaluddin shall comply
with the conditions mentioned in Section 438(2) of the Code;
(iii) the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9482/2021 preferred
by Manager Singh is partly allowed by –
(a) quashing the summoning order issued against Manager
Singh, with an order of remand to the Magistrate in terms
of the observations in this judgment;
(b) quashing the non-bailable warrants issued against Manager
Singh; and
(c) directing release of Manager Singh on bail by the
arresting officer/investigating officer/trial court on terms
and conditions fixed by the trial court in connection with
the chargesheet under Sections 323, 504, 506, 120B,
308 and 325 IPC, arising out of FIR No. 556/2019 dated
23.12.2019 registered at Police Station Aliganj, District
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey Result of the case:
Appeals disposed of.