Non-Compliance Of S.173(2) Cr.P.C. Gives Rise To Many Legal Issues: Supreme Court Issues Guidelines On Police Report Procedure

The directions was issued in an appeal filed by an accused against the decision of the Jharkhand High Court that denied him bail in a murder case. The Supreme Court too denied bail to the accused stating that the trial was its “fag end.”

Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed, “The Police Report submitted by the police under Section 173(2) being very important piece of document from the view point of the prosecution, the defence and the court, we deem it necessary to elaborately deal with the various aspects involved in the said provision.”

The Court directed that the Report of police officer on the completion of investigation shall contain the following:

1. A report in the form prescribed by the State Government stating- (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom; (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section (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)”
2. If upon the completion of investigation, there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, the Police officer in charge shall clearly state in the Report about the compliance of Section 169 Cr.PC.
3. When the report in respect of a case to which Section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report, all the documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation; and the statements recorded under Section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.
4. In case of further investigation, the Police officer in charge shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed and shall also comply with the details mentioned in the above sub para (i) to (iii).

Advocate Kumar Shivam represented the appellants, while AAG Sharan Dev Singh Thakur appeared for the respondents.

The Court's attention was drawn to a previous order issued, where the Court had observed inadequacy of any details or particulars in chargesheets filed in various States, including Jharkhand, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh. The Court had directed the respective DGPs to ensure that chargesheets were filed in accordance with the law and contained necessary details.

“Section 172 pertains to the Diary of proceedings in investigation, which requires every police officer making an investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. to enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary day by day,” the Court explained.

The Court expressed concern over the fact that the investigating officers while submitting the chargesheet/Police Report were not complying with the requirements of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C and stated that “a chargesheet is nothing but a final report of the police officer under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C.”

Therefore, the Court directed the officer in charge of the police stations in every State to “strictly comply with the afore-stated directions, and the non-compliance thereof shall be strictly viewed by the concerned courts in which the Police Reports are submitted.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal.

Cause Title: Dablu Kujur v. The State Of Jharkhand (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 197)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Vatsalya Vigya; Advocate Kumar Shivam

Respondent: AAG Sharan Dev Singh Thakur; AOR Shantanu Sagar, Azmat Hayat Amanullah, Ruchira Goel and Prateek Yadav; Advocates Vishnu Sarma, Puneet Singh Bindra, Nitya Sharma, T. G. Shahi, Siddharth Thakur, Adit Jayeshbhai Shah, Sharanya Sinha, Keerti Jaya, Rajesh Ranjan, Attin Shankar Rastogi and Adil Vasudeva

Click here to read/download the Judgment