Chargesheet Is Complete When It Refers To Material & Evidence Sufficient To Take Cognizance & For Trial: SC
The Supreme Court while dealing with a batch of criminal appeals, has elaborated on certain aspects relating to contents of Chargesheet.
The Court said that the chargesheet is complete when it refers to material and evidence sufficient to take cognizance & for trial.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti observed, “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 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 Bench added that the trial can proceed based on the evidence and material placed on record with the chargesheet and 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.
AOR Syed Mehdi Imam represented the appellants while AAG Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad represented the respondents.
In this case, the issue was related 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 (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.
The appellants were involved in a drawn-out litigation with several parties over the ownership of a property. The challenge before the court was the FIR filed under Sections 420, 406, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the appellants. As per the FIR, the appellants had agreed to sell the subject property to a person and had received part payment for the registry of the same. However, they did not register it and also failed to refund the concerned amount.
The Supreme Court in the above regard said, “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.”
The Court emphasised that 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. … A normal transaction of sale or exchange of money/consideration does not amount to entrustment. Clearly, the charge/offence of Section 406 IPC is not even remotely made out”, it added.
Furthermore, the Court noted that 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.
“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. 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 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”, it also held.
The Court remarked that 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 and that 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.
“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 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”, it enunciated.
The Court, therefore, reiterated 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 and it concluded by saying that 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 Code should not be read in a restrictive manner as applicable only after the accused has been granted bail.
Accordingly, the Apex Court issued necessary directions.
Cause Title- Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 363)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Syed Mehdi Imam, Advocates Mohd Parvez Dabas, Uzmi Jamil Husain, Mushtaque Ahmad Khan, Tabrez Ahmad, Aamir Dabas, AOR Rauf Rahim, Advocate Ali Asghar Rahim, AOR Meenakshi Kalra, Advocates Saad Sharif, Pravir Singh, Anurag Malik, and S.N. Kalra.
Respondents: AAG Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AOR Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Advocates Arun Pratap Singh Rajawat, Ashish Madaan, Ananya Sahu, Saumya Sharma, AOR Adarsh Upadhyay, Advocates Shubhali Pathak, Ashish Madaan, Pallavi Kumari, Ananya Sahu, Aman Pathak, AOR Dushyant Parashar, Advocates Dinesh Pandey, Manu Parashar, AOR Rajesh Srivastava, Advocates Gaurav Verma, Neeraj Dutt Gaur, and Sanjay Singh.
