Chittaranjan Mirdha vs Dulal Ghosh and Anr.
| Case name. : Chittaranjan Mirdha vs Dulal Ghosh and Anr. |
| Equivalent citations: (2009) 6SCC 661 |
| Date of judgement. : 8th May 2009 |
| Case no. : Criminal appeal no.964 of 2008 |
| Case type. : Criminal appeal |
| Petitioner. : Chittaranjan Mirdha |
| Respondent. : Dulal Gosh |
| Bench. : Arjit Pasayat, Harjit Singh Bedi |
| Statutes referred. : Criminal Procedure code |
| Arms act |
| Indian penal code |
Facts of the case
The appellant, Chittaranjan Mirdha, had filed a complaint in the police station, alleging that his son was died of gunshot injury. The investigating officer had conducted the investigation based on the complaint and submitted the chargesheet before the court. The court took cognizance of the offense based on such charge sheet. But, after few months the appellant filed an application for directing the investigation on DIG, CID, West Bengal. The court accepted the application and directed the police for further investigation. The court took cognizance of the offense based on the charge sheet submitted after such investigation. Thus, the court issued an arrest warrant against the respondent
The respondent had filed a revisional application against the order, but it was rejected by the court. Thus, the appellant filed a petition before the high court. The High court passed an order quashing the order of the learned court. The court was also directed to take the case for fresh consideration. Following this, the appellant filed an appeal in the supreme court challenging the validity of the order of High Court.
Issues of the case
Whether the order of High court quashing the order of cognizance taken by the addl. District and session judge is valid?
Arguments raised by the appellant
- The counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned court has the power to direct further investigation even after taking cognizance of the offence based on the final report submitted by police u
- This power of the court to direct the investigator for further investigation is mentioned in the subsection (8) of 173 CRPC.
“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).”
- In the case of Ranm Lal Narang vs State (Delhi administration) and CBI vs R.S.Pai and Anr. The Supreme Court held that the police may conduct further investigation even after submitting the final report or after taking cognizance of the the offense by the court.
Arguments raised by the respondent
- The counsel for the respondent submitted that the court took cognizance of the offense based on the charge sheet submitted after investigation. In such charge sheet some of the accused persons mentioned in the FIR were left out and few others were implicated.
- In such a situation, the court shall issue a notice to the complainant to give him an opportunity of hearing. Instead, the court directed the investigation to CBI, CID, West Bengal on the prayer made by the complainant.
- In Bhagwant singh vs commissioner of police and anr the court held that the informant must be provided with the opportunity of being heard. So that the informant gets the chance to make submission to persuade the magistrate to take cognizance of the offense.
Judgement of the case
The court dismissed the appeal since the appellant had failed in proving the order of the high court to be prejudicial to him. The high court had already directed the addl. District and sessions court to take the procedural safeguards while reconsidering the case. Thus, the court dismissed the appeal upon finding no merit in it.
Reason of the judgement
The High Court had already dealt with the issue regarding the power of the court to direct further investigation even after taking cognizance of offense. It was held that the court has the power to direct the investigation even after taking cognizance based on the report of investigating officer.
The main issue in this case was regarding the denial of the opportunity of hearing to the complainant. A magistrate has three options before while considering the final report submitted by the investigating officer. He can accept the report or reject it. He also has the power to direct further investigation. But it is prejudicial to the informant if the magistrate decides to not to take cognizance of the offense or drop the proceeding. It is also prejudicial if the magistrate drop the charges against some of the accused persons mentioned in the FIR upon finding no grounds for the continuation of the proceedings.
In conclusion, it is mandatory for the court to issue notice to the informant to provide the opportunity of being heard. Since, the High Court of Calcutta had already directed the procedural safeguards while reconsidering the case, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant had also failed to prove the order of High Court to be prejudicial to him.
Analysis
When someone files a complaint in the police station, the police conduct investigation and submits a final report before the court. The court can accept the report or reject it. Otherwise, it can direct the investigator for further investigation. But, if the complainant is unsatisfied with the report, he may file a protest petition. Even though the protest petition is not mentioned in the statue, the courts have recognised it through various cases.
The complainant also has the right to be heard while considering the final report by the court. If the magistrate decides to drop the proceedings or to drop charges against the accused persons mentioned in FIR the court shall sent a notice to the complainant. This right of the complainant was denied by the learned court. In the light of these circumstances the high court passed an order to reconsider the case and take procedural safeguards. So the supreme court dismissed the appeal upon finding no merit in it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is the right of the complainant to have the opportunity of hearing while considering the charge sheet by the court. If the magistrate decides to take cognizance of the offense and continue with the proceedings, it will not be prejudicial to the complainant. But, if the magistrate decides to not to take cognizance or to drop the charges against some of the accused persons mentioned in the FIR, it is prejudicial to the complainant. It is because the FIR is being ineffective while taking such decisions. The supreme court also made it mandatory to provide notice to the complainant in such circumstances.
References
1 Ranm Lal Narang vs State (Delhi administration) 1979 AIR 1791,1979 SCC (2) 322
2 CBI vs R.S.Pai and Anr. 2002 SCC (cr) 950
3 Bhagwant singh vs commissioner of police and anr AIR 1985 SC 1285, 1985 SCR (3) 942
4 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1074904/
written by Poornima Rajasekaran a student of Government Law College, Thrissur, third semester
