FINAL REPORT OR CHARGESHEET FILED BY THE POLICE OFFICER AFTER

COMPLETION OF AN INVESTIGATION: ITS OBJECT AND IMPLICATION

Pintu Babu
Semester 7
Course : B.A.LL.B.
Section : C , Roll No. 110

Project Report
For
The Code of Criminal Procedure

Submitted To
Dr. Parvesh Kumar Rajput
Assistant Professor

Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

Submitted on : 18.08.2018
ii | P a g e

DECLARATION

I Pintu Babu, have undergone research of the project work titled “Final Report or Chargesheet
filed by the Police Officer after completion of an Investigation: Its Object and Implication”, as
a student of Criminal Law hereby declare that- this Research Project is the outcome of the
investigation done by me and also prepared by myself under the supervision of Dr. Parvesh Kumar
Rajput, Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur. The views expressed in the report are
personal to the student and do not reflect the views of any authority or any other person, and do
not bind the statute in any manner.

I also declare that this report is the intellectual property of the on the part of student research work,
and the same or any part thereof may not be used in any manner whatsoever in writing.

______________________________
Pintu Babu
Roll No. 110
ID No. 1520151274
Semester – VII (C)
Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur
iii | P a g e

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

This is to certify that Mr. Pintu Babu, Roll Number-110, student of Semester- VII, Section C of
B.A. LL.B.(Hons.), Hidayatullah National Law University, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh) has
undergone research of the project work titled “Final Report or Chargesheet filed by the Police
Officer after completion of an Investigation: Its Object and Implication”, in partial fulfillment
of the subject CrPC. His performance in research work is up to the level.

Place: New Raipur

Date: 18.08.2018 ……………………………………

Dr. Parvesh Kumar Rajput.

(Faculty- CPC)

Hidayatullah National Law University,

Raipur, Chhattisgarh
iv | P a g e

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I feel highly elated to work on the project “Final Report or Chargesheet filed by the Police Officer
after completion of an Investigation: Its Object and Implication. The practical realization of the
project has obligated the assistance of many persons. Firstly I express my deepest gratitude towards
Dr. Parvesh Kumar Rajput, Faculty of CrPC, to provide me with the opportunity to work on this
project. His able guidance and supervision in terms of his lectures were of extreme help in
understanding and carrying out the nuances of this project.

I would also like to thank The University and the Vice Chancellor for providing extensive database
resources in the library and for the Internet facilities provided by the University.

Some typography or printing errors might have crept in, which are deeply regretted. I would be
grateful to receive comments and suggestions to further improve this project.

Pintu Babu
Roll No. 110
ID No. 1520151274
Semester – VII (C)
Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur
v|Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION......................................................................................................................................... ii
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY....................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... iv
TITLE ......................................................................................................................................................... vi
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................... vi
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM ............................................................................................................... viii
AIMS & OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................ viii
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................... viii
RESEARCH QUESTIONS ..................................................................................................................... viii
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF CASES ......................................................................................................................................... x
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................. ix
SUBMISSION OF COMPLETION REPORT....................................................................................... xii
THE POWER OF REINVESTIGATION - ANALYSED .................................................................... xix
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS ................................................................................................ xxii
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................. xxix
WEBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................................ xxix
vi | P a g e

TITLE

The project is titled “Final Report or Chargesheet filed by the Police Officer after completion
of an Investigation: Its Object and Implication”.

INTRODUCTION

Art 21 of the Constitution guarantees fundamental right to life and personal liberty. This article of
Constitution has been interpreted by the Judiciary with widest amplitude so as to include several
other rights such as right to food and shelter, and other rights and most importantly the right to fair
trial which includes the right to fair investigation. In Anbaizhagan’s case, the apex court observed
that, ‘if the criminal trial is not free and fair and not free from bias the judicial fairness and the
criminal justice system would be at stake, shaking the confidence of the public in the system and
woe would be the rule of law’,1 Trial should be fair to all concerned and ‘denial of fair trial is as
much an injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the society.2

The right to fair trial includes ‘Fair Investigation’,3 Fair trial and fair investigation are pre-
requisites to get justice which the parties deserve as per law, and one without the other cannot yield
to fair justice. A victim of a crime is entitled to fair investigation 4 and if required the case can be
entrusted to a specialized agency like CBI and the courts have enough power to do complete justice
to the parties by giving appropriate directions.

The investigating authorities have been empowered to submit a report to the magistrate that there
is no evidence or reasonable grounds or suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to the
Magistrate and to release the accused from the custody on his executing a bond with or without
surety, as the police officer direct, to appear, if and when so required, before a Magistrate
empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report and to try the accused or commit

1
K. Anbazhagan v. The Superintendent Of Police & Ors, AIR 2004 SC 524.
2
Best Bakery Case, AIR 2004 SC 3114.
3
Kalyani Baskar v. M.S.Sampoornam, (2007)2 SCC 259.
4
Nirmal Singh Kahlon’s case, AIR 2006 SC P.1367.
vii | P a g e

for trial.5 The 41st report of the Indian Law Commission recommended that an accused person
must get a fair trial in accordance with the principles of natural justice, efforts must be made to
avoid delay in investigation and trial and the procedures should aim at ensuring fair deal to the
poorer sections of the society. The report under Sec 169 Cr Pc is referred to as a ‘closure report’.
The Magistrate however, can direct the police to make further investigation. The scope of the
power to direct further investigation when the police report states that there is no evidence to
proceed further, and really there is no evidence in the case at all, whether it would be an order
which can be justified or held valid needs examination.

5
Sec. 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
viii | P a g e

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

When the police investigation leading to a case gets completed, the officer in charge of the police
station so concerned has to forward a report prescribed by the state government in form of the
particulars related to name of parties, other persons, nature of offence, arrest of accuse, medical
examination of any party whenever it is required. Under sec 173 of CPC the police officer investing
the case is required to furnish to the accused the copies of documents.

AIMS & OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

 To gather knowledge about the process of police investigation.

 To study the framing and components of a Police Report.
 To study the case laws surrounding Police Report and it’s object.
 To analyze various problems faced by police officer in submitted a police report.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Section 173 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies in the event when investigation
has been completed and the officer in charge of the police station has duty to prepare a report
based on the investigation so carried out, and writing down the important events related to the
case. Furthermore, Art. 21 also includes right in free and fair trial by every common man of this
country.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 What is Police Report?
 How much relevance does it hold in police investigation?
 What are the important elements of a police report?
 Is a police officer bound to furnish a copy of report to the accused?
 What is the position related to further investigation under CPC?
 ix | P a g e

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

The scope of this project is limited to a certain document that is prepared by the police when police
investigation has been carried out and the report has to be sent to the magistrate. The elements of
the police report are important in the nature thus these builds a base for the further trail or further
investigation if in case one has to be carried out.

The methodology of research adopted for the project is analytical methodology. The study has
been carried out with the help of secondary sources and there has been use of authentic books,
articles and websites that provided reliable information and data.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

 Sohoni's Code of Criminal Procedure - Sohoni’s Code of Criminal Procedure is the most
comprehensive and authoritative work on the law of Criminal Procedure in India. It is a legal
classic which has served the legal profession and everyone associated with it for almost a century
This leading work has been painstakingly updated to include the latest cases, legislative
amendments and current developments in the law relating to criminal procedure in India.
 Ratanlal And Dhirajlal CrPC, 22nd Edition - Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s commentary on the Code
of Criminal Procedure is a legal classic that has served the legal fraternity for almost a century by
simplifying technical rules of procedure and complex legal issues. The commentary has throughout
been written lucidly and carries section-wise discussions, which places it amongst the most
authoritative and leading commentaries on the law of Criminal Procedure in India.
 R.V. Kelkar's Criminal Procedure, 6th Edition - This classic work provides an in-depth analysis
of the hitherto overlooked aspect of criminal procedure in the Indian context. Written by R.V.
Kelkar in 1977, the book has subsequently been revised by Professor K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai,
the able student of the author. Though the topics have been updated and revised, Professor Pillai
has ensured that the originality and freshness of the approach of Kelkar does not get lost. The basic
fundamental principles of criminal procedure have been discussed in a logical sequence. Attempt
has been made to make the study of criminal procedure both meaningful as well as interesting.
x|Page

LIST OF CASES

Sr No. Case Citation

1. Abhinandan jha v. Dinesh Mishra (1967) 3 SCR 668
2. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty v. State 1993 Cr LJ 3052 (Ori.)
3. Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 613
4. H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi AIR 1955 SC 196
5. Hassan Khan v. State of Rajasthan 1996 Cr LJ 4303 (Raj.)
6. Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of AIR 1979 SC 1360
Bihar
7. J Alexander v. State of Karnataka 1996 Cr LJ 592 (Kant.)
8. K. Anbazhagan vs The Superintendent Of Police & AIR 2004 SC 524
Ors
9. Kalyani Baskar Vs. M.S.Sampoornam (2007)2 SCC 259
10. Nimeon Sangma v. State of Meghalaya 1979 Cr LJ 941 (SC)
11. Nirmal Singh Kahlon’s case AIR 2006 SC P.1367
12. Perni Ailarnma v. Tella Zedson 1989 Cri LJ 783(AP)
13. R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (1960) 3 SCR 388
14. Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1979 SC 1791
15. State of Orissa v. Khora Ghasi 1978 Cr LJ 1305 (Orissa)
16. Zu!fiqar Beg alias Baby v. State of UP. 1992 Cr LJ 2067 (All.)
17. Gurdds Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1975 SC 1411

LIST OF BOOKS
 Batuk Lal's Commentary on The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 By Batuk Lal, 2016
 Code Of Criminal Procedure by SOHONI Revised by Justice M L Singhal, 21st Edition
 Commentary on the Code of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, By S.C.Sarkar Foreword
by Indira Shah, 2017, 4 th Edition
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE by C K Thakker ‘Takwani’ and M C Thakker, 2014
xi | P a g e

 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (Student Edition) By RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL,

2014, 1st Edition
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 by D D BASU, 2014, 5th Edition
 The Code of Criminal Procedure by Dr. N.V.Paranjape, 6th edition, 2017

LEGISLATIONS

 Code of Criminal Procedure

 Constitution of India, 1950
 Indian Evidence Act, 1872

DICTIONARIES

 Garner Black’s Law Dictionary

 Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary

REPORTS
 Law Commission of India, 44th Report, 1973
 Justice Malimath Committee Report, 2003
xii | P a g e

SUBMISSION OF COMPLETION REPORT

As section 173(1) of the Code makes it obligatory, sub-ss. (5) and (6) have been introduced ins.
167 with a view to see that there is no unnecessary delay in investigation. The police manual too
suggest for completion of the investigation without a break and with the least possible delay.
Intrinsic in the given legal procedures is the established interest justifying the cause of speedy
investigation, a matter of right for the accused as also that for the defendant that are integral to the
rule of law. The rationale behind the policy for a speedy investigation is that delay would not only
cause for the opposite party to suborn evidence, influence witnesses and deflect the course of
justice or that the disinterested witnesses may not only loose the interest and also fail to remember
the details of the occurrence, but that "it may legitimately lead to the grievance of the accused that
the work of the investigation is carried on unfairly or with an ulterior motive.''6 The delay in the
completion or progress of the investigation is not permissible, vide 173(b) of the Manual, not even
to secure the arrest of more of the accused or to take the order of the superior officers as part of
any consultation in the course of investigation. Dilatory investigation that entails tardy
administration of justice has been held by the Apex Court as violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution.7

The examination of the Inspection Notes of the supervisory officers at all the thanas that were
based on inspections conducted either towards the end of the third-quarter or at the end of the year
2002, showed poorly of the investigating officers' regard and commitment for the above mentioned
provisions with distinct constitutional bearing. The average number of cases pending for
investigation at each of the four thanas during the time of supervision was 54 percent of the total
number of reported cognizable cases. The remarks of all the inspecting officers, Circle Inspector,
Additional Superintendent of Police or Deputy Inspector General, irrespective of the thanas
supervised, regarding the pendency of the cases were generally alike. It appeared as thus: "too high

6
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, (1960) 3 SCR 388: AIR 1960 SC 866: 1960 Cr LJ 1239. R. Deb, op. cit., p. 82.
7
Nimeon Sangma v. State of Meghalaya, 1979 Cr LJ 941 (SC); Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of
Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360: 1979 Cr LJ 1036, 1045, 1052. The SC, in these cases, directed some prisoners to be
discharged, some cases to be ithdrawn and some other cases to be finished within a fixed time limit. See R. Deb, ibid.
xiii | P a g e

or heavy, which are kept pending unnecessarily. There is a scope to reduce the pendency further
and keep it in check."

There are three different kinds of reports to be made by the police officers at three different stages
of investigation.

1. Section 157 of the Code requires a preliminary report from the OIC of a police station to
the Magistrate.
2. Section 168 requires reports from a subordinate police officer to the OIC of the station.
3. Section 173 requires a report of the police officer as soon as investigation is completed to
the Magistrate competent to take cognizance of the case.

There are two kinds of "police reports"8 that are made at the completion of the investigation of any
case and the Code makes use of no specific expression to differentiate between them. The Police
Manual distinguishes this "completion/police report" submitted u/ss. 169and 170, Cr.P.C. as "final
report" and "charge-sheet," respectively.

According to rule 174(a) of the Orissa Police Manual, "when the case is found to be true and
accused persons are sent up, either in custody or on bail, a charge-sheet shall be submitted ... "
Whereas, "in all cases in which no arrest is made or in which there is insufficient evidence to send
up the persons arrested for trial, or in which the charge is reported false, a non-cognizable or
mistake of fact or mistake of law,"9 or "in which investigation is refused" or because of lack of
clue, "the final report contemplated in section 173(1), Cr.P.C. shall be written ... ," vide rule 181(a).

8
According to section 2(r) of Cr.P.C., "police report" means a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate
under sub-section (2) of section 173 of the Code.
9
'Mistake' is not mere forgetfulness, a slip "made, not by design, but by mischance." In both cases, the act inhere
bonafide intention. Mistake of Fact: At common law, an honest and reasonable mistake is that when an alleged
offender is deemed to have acted under that state of facts which he in good faith and on reasonable grounds believed
to exist when he did the act alleged to be an offence. The accused while guarding his maize field shot an arrow at a
moving object in the bona fide belief that it was a bear and in the process caused the death of a man who was hiding
there. It was held that he could not be held liable for murder as u/ss. 79 and 80 IPC. State of Orissa v. Khora Ghasi,
1978 Cr LJ 1305 (Orissa). Mistake of Law: Mistake in the point of law in a criminal case is no defence. Mistake of
law ordinarily means mistake as to the existence or otherwise of any law on a relevant subject as well as mistake as to
what the law is. See Ratanlal and Dhirajlal's The Code of Criminal Procedure, op. cit., pp. 78-79.
xiv | P a g e

The completion report is provided in the form prescribed by the State Government that contains
the particulars referred to in sub-clauses (a) to (g) of d. (i) of s. 173(2) and s. 173(5) of the Code.
The other documents that are required to accompany the report are provided in rules 175, 175A,
and 176(a) and (b) of the Orissa Police Manual.

All reports are forwarded by the OIC of the police station and hence bear responsibility for the
quality of the investigation. More so, it is required under the rule 174(b), and rules 181(c) and (d)
of the Manual for the Circle Inspector and the Superintendent to go into the reports to note the
defects therein, if any, and make such orders accordingly for the investigating officer to rectifY
the same. But in actual practice, it is seldom the District Chief who could ever go through all such
reports. Hence, the burden gets concentrated on the Circle Inspector who likewise tries to pass the
buck on to the respective OICs to ensure foolproof cases. On two occasions at two different thanas,
the researcher was witness to the In-Charge of the thanas pointing out the defects in the reports
while it perused the same before forwarding it to the Magistrate.

 In one case, a completion report that was submitted to the In-Charge of Sewaknagar thana
by one of its subordinate officers to be forwarded to the Magistrate, had retained the same
charges that the FIR of the case revealed about the commission of such offences, without
giving adequate reasons therefor and without the requisite evidence to substantiate the
charges. On being enquired by the OIC about the "defect," the concerned investigating
officer's primary rationalisation was for the case having been registered under the same
charges. It is notable that the case outcome has to be based merely on the evidence obtained
during the course of the investigation and thus, it is not necessary that the charges made
out of the offences as alleged in the FIR may in the report after the completion of the
investigation had to be the same , rather charges are to be made afresh only in light of the
evidence amassed by the I0 in the case.
 Similarly, in another instance, the newly appointed OIC of Lekhpur thana10 while
disapproving the unnecessary search conducted by an IO to trouble the people related to a

10
It needs to be noted that the Inspection Notes on this thana on the basis of the inspections held just before and after
the appointment of this OIC revealed a notable difference in the review of the working of the thana. Whereas the
earlier report criticised its predecessor for lack of coordination with its staff, and for not guiding its subordinates
xv | P a g e

case also found the same IO trying to favour a party in an assault case related to a land
dispute by being dilatory. Thus, on the complaint by the opposite party, the OIC directed
the concerned IO to report by a certain time that all the necessary corrective action has
been taken.

This study has dealt with such registered cases wherein subsequent to the compromise between
the disputing parties that is usually concluded with the informed consent of the OIC, that 'final
reports' were found to be made under reasons of "mistake of fact", and "insufficient evidence". 11
The Supreme Court's observation in HN Rishbud v. State ofDelhi,12

... the formation of the opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial
before a magistrate, is left to the Officer In-Charge of the police station, confirms the definitive
discretion conferred u/s. 173 whereby the OIC is empowered to exercise such powers. In addition,
the court further provided that:

... it would appear to follow that in any case where the police officer has come to the conclusion
that there is no case to place before the magistrate and has accordingly submitted a final report, a
magistrate cannot call for a charge-sheet ...

The opinion of the IOs of the four thanas to two questions put not in quick succession on the
possibility of manipulation in order to alter the legitimate outcome of the investigation elicited
constant responses. As nearly 30 percent of the convenient police sample agreed about the possible
manipulation of a case in the course of investigation so as to change the legitimate outcome and
thus issue a completion report as desired. It shows that there exists the possibility of changing the
nature of the completion report from final report to a charge-sheet and vice-versa, but according
to the respondents, such instances are rare and obviously based on powerful extraneous

properly on matters of investigation of cases, the later report appreciated the improvement in the working of the thana
attributing the same to the newly-appointed OIC.
11
In Yeshodabad thana, even in a petition case where the aggrieved complainant had moved the court because of
police inaction, compromise was seen to have been effected by the OIC and subsequently a final report was submitted,
accordingly.
12
H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196: 1955 Cr LJ 526. Also see Abhinandan jha v. Dinesh Mishra,
(1967) 3 SCR 668: AIR 1968 SC 117: 1968 Cr LJ 97. Syed H. Afzal Qadri, op. cit., pp. 73, 113-14.
xvi | P a g e

considerations than on the merit of the investigation. The rest of the sample expressly denied such
possibleness.

The submission of a report u/s. 173(2) does not exhaust the right of the police to make further
investigation in a crime, vide sub-section (8), supplementary reports can also be submitted. The
superior police officer may also, under sub-s. (3), direct further investigation pending the orders
of the Magistrate. The Orissa High Court has held that further investigation by the police is not
without jurisdiction or contrary to law.13

Thus, vested with considerable discretion, there is always the possibility of misuse of such powers.
The d. (ii) of sub-s. (2) of s. 173 of the Code makes it mandatory for the OIC to communicate to
the complainant/informant of the case of the action taken by the police, that is, the result of the
investigation. The Police Manual too, vide Rule 181 (a) of the Police Manual, confer the same
responsibility on the 10 in all cases disposed of u/s. 173 and also u/s. 157(b) of the Code by serving
notice on the complainant or informant. In an alleged rape case registered at Yeshodabad thana, it
was found that:

the official result of the investigation was in contrary to the belief of the complainant's side that a
"charge-sheet" may have been submitted as the compromise berween both the parties for a certain
compensation to be paid to the victim was later annulled as the victim side later preferred to take
the legal course.

The Supreme Court in a case where five persons were alleged to be involved in an offence u/s. 307

IPC and a 'final report' was submitted without any cogent ground, made the following
observations:

13
Zu!fiqar Beg alias Baby v. State of UP., 1992 Cr LJ 2067 (All.); Hassan Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 Cr LJ
4303 (Raj.); Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 SC 1791: 1979 Cr LJ 1346; J Alexander v. State of
Karnataka, 1996 Cr LJ 592 (Kant.); Chandra Sekhar Mohanty v. State, 1993 Cr LJ 3052 (Ori.). See Ratanlal and
Dhirajlal's The Code of Criminal Procedure, op. cit., pp. 270-72.
xvii | P a g e

It was neither clear to High Court and nor to us as to what was the basis, circumstances and material
upon which the investigating agency usurped the role of the court and recorded the verdict of
innocence in favour of rwo sons of Sampuran Singh.14

In cases where the investigation is refused, it was found that the notice to be served on the
complainant/informant for information about the same, as referred to in the second para of rule
181(a), OPM, is seldom done. The reasons for the refusal are never tendered nor demanded as such
enquiry is feared to be considered as an affront to the authority of the police. In a recent judgment,
a Bench of the Supreme Court while expressing serious concern over the manner in which various
High Courts passed orders giving no reason for their decision to either reject or accept the
contentions, observed that "right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system." It
held that failure to give reasons by courts in their judgments would amount to denial of justice.15
Thus in the interest of the larger criminal justice process, the information that the police are
required by law to communicate, as noted above, are essentially of consonantal import. There is
also the provision, vide rule 182(a) of the OPM, that,

When an investigating officer is satisfied that a case is deliberately or maliciously false, he shall
make a special endeavour to ... secure the conviction of the informant under section 182 or 211,
I.P.C., and, if evidence be available, shall, along with the final report, submit to the Magistrate a
formal complaint to enable him to take cognizance under section 190, Cr.P.C. ..

It is also required of the IO to furnish full reasons in support of its application made to the
magistrate for prosecution.16 In cases that are declared as false and either frivolous or vexatious,
there is the provision for compensation to the aggrieved party. The police manual makes it
incumbent upon the Superintendents and the Circle Inspectors to take personal/special interest in
such cases and see that the investigating officer as also the prosecuting officers realise their
responsibilities as demanded by law.

14
Gurdds Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1975 SC 1411. See Syed H. Afzal Qadri, op. cit., p. 114.
15
J. Venkatesan, Failure to give reasons by courts a denial ofjustice, The Hindu, Delhi, Wednesday, December 24,
2003, p. 11.
16
Item no. 16 in the 'Final Form' necessitates filling up the particulars in reference to: "If FIR is false, indicate action
taken or proposed to be taken uls. 182/211, I.P.C."
xviii | P a g e

In the year 2002, the average percentage of the total reported cases of all the four thanas in which
'final report' was submitted on account of false case was 1.3 and in no such case did the police
initiate proceedings for the prosecution of the complainant. The most common reason for it,
according to the police respondents, was the 'lack of time' as action in such cases would mean as
many cases in hand for investigation for the already burdened lOs. The triangular average of the
cases in which 'final report' was submitted during 2000-2002, excluding those that were pending
for investigation, varied from 9 percent to 16 percent in the rural thanas and 38 percent in the
urban thana. The reasons cited, other than as 'false' were 'insufficient evidence', 'lack of clue',
'mistake of fact/law', etc. This could also be done to evade further processes as required under a
case concluded as false. It thus appears that the police could also easily and conveniently foist false
cases for its immediate ulterior motives and later conclude it under the above mentioned heads
other than 'false'.

The Malimath Committee's suggestion for stringent punishment as a deterrent to prevent false
registration of cases and false complaints for which it calls for suitable amendment of ss. 182/211
of IPC should, therefore, be directed to arrest such possibilities of abuse by the police themselves,
as stated above.17

17
Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System (Chairman Dr. Justice V.S. Malimath), op. cit., Recommendation
no. 17(k), p. 241.
xix | P a g e

THE POWER OF REINVESTIGATION - ANALYSED

On receipt of final report it is open for the Magistrate under section 173(2) read with Section 169
from the police that there is no case for trial, to adopt the following courses under clause (3) to
Section 173 which are that he may agree with the report and file the proceedings. In case of
disagreement with report it is appropriate for the Magistrate to order further investigation under
section 156(3) if he is of the opinion that the investigation is unsatisfactory or incomplete. He may
otherwise form an opinion that the facts set out in the final report constitute an offence and may
take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b). The appropriate course has to be decided upon after
consideration of the report and after application of mind by the Magistrate.

It has been pointed out that “Further investigation in the offence is legally permissible as
contemplated by Section 173(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Counsel appearing for the
State when asked, represents that the investigation was not yet complete and State would come to
a definite conclusion as to the culpability of the appellant only on the completion of investigation.
Investigation into an offence was a statutory function of the police and the superintendence thereof
is vested in the State Government and the Court cannot in the absence of any compelling and
justifiable reason interfere with the investigation".

In other words there is a statutory right on the part of the Police to investigate the circumstances
of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the Judicial Authorities and
it would be an unfortunate result, if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory
rights.

However, the investigation can be reopened and a supplementary charge-sheet can be submitted
only on the basis of such materials which could not come to the knowledge of the Investigating
Officer during investigation and not as a routine affair. A subsequent charge sheet could not be
submitted without further investigation by the police and without obtaining further evidence
against the petitioners. Police has a right to further investigate when fresh information comes to
light.

Sub-section (8) of Section 173, Cr. P.C., it may be noted that it only lays down a deeming
provision. The law expects the discharge of duties by the Investigating Officer properly resulting
xx | P a g e

in a report under Section 173(2). It may only be in some exceptional case where the Investigating
Officer may have to collect some further evidence or materials and submit it to the Magistrate
along with his further report. Such an exceptional case will only prove the general rule that
normally investigation terminates with filing of the charge-sheet in Court. In other words, the
Investigating Officer believes and places reliance on the evidence and material collected by him
by then.

Supply to the accused person copies of statements, documents and police report

I. In any case instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is required by Section 207 to furnish
to the accused with delay and free of cost, a copy of each of the following:
a. the police report;
b. the first information report (FIR);
c. the statements recorded under Section 161(3) of all persons whom the prosecution proposes
to examine as its witnesses;
d. the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under Section 164;
e. any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police
report under Section 173(5). However, if the Magistrate is satisfied that any such document
is voluminous, he shall, instead of giving a copy thereof to the accused, direct that the
accused (or his pleader) will only be allowed to inspect it.

The object of supply of copies to the accused is to put him on notice of what he has to meet at the
time of the enquiry or trial and to prepare himself for his defence.18

II. Where, in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, it appears to the Magistrate
issuing process under Section 204 that the offence is triable exclusively by the Sessions
Court, the Magistrate is required by Section 208 to furnish to the accused, without delay
and free of cost, a copy of each of the following:
a. the statements recorded under Section 200 or Section 202. of all persons examined by the
Magistrate;

18
Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 613
xxi | P a g e

b. statements and confessions, if any, recorded under Section 161 or Section 164;19
c. any documents produced before the Magistrate on which the prosecution proposes to rely.
However, if any such document is voluminous, the Magistrate, instead of furnishing the
accused with a copy thereof, shall direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either
personally or through pleader in court,

19
Perni Ailarnma v. Tella Zedson, 1989 Cri LJ 783(AP)
xxii | P a g e

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

The Code of Criminal Procedure provides for certain reports which the investigating police officer
is required to send from time to time. They are to be sent at three different stages of investigation.
They are—

(1.) A preliminary report when an officer-in-charge of the police station sends to the
Magistrate under Section 157.

(2.) A report from the subordinate police officer to the officer-in-charge of the police
station under Section 168, and

(3.) A final report of the police officer after the completion of investigation to be sent
to the Magistrate under Section 173. This report is commonly called as
‘chargesheet’ or “challan”.

The filing of final report on completion of investigation is absolutely necessary and it should be
sent to the Magistrate without delay. The report is to be sent in the prescribed form, and should
contain all details as specified in Section 173 (2) (i) (a) to (g). However, the final report need not
contain findings of facts as recorded by the Investigation Officer, nor he is expected to give clear
chit to the accused by exercising power of a Court or judicial authority. The Magistrate has the
jurisdiction to differ with the conclusions arrived at by the investigating police officer in his final
report and may direct that the accused person be summoned and tried or committed to the Court
of Session for trial, as the case may be.

The Supreme Court in Satya Narayan v. State of Bihar, held that a report under Section 173 (2)
has to be accompanied by all the relevant documents and statements of the witnesses mentioned
therein as required by sub-section (5) of this section. The whole of it is to be submitted as a final
report to the Court.

The Supreme Court in Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI observed that a charge sheet is a final report within
the meaning of Section 173 (2), Cr. P.C. It is filed so as to enable the court concerned to apply its
mind as to whether cognizance of the offence thereupon should be taken or not.
xxiii | P a g e

Charge sheet must state the offence or offences committed and who committed them. In case the
accused is absconding, the Investigation Officer need not wait for filing the charge sheet till the
accused is arrested, provided he finds sufficient evidence against the accused.

The Court in this case held that non-filing of all documents with final report by the Investigating
Officer does not render the charge sheet (final report) vitiated in law in terms of Section 173 (5)
of Cr. P.C.

The Court further made it clear that the statutory right of the accused to be released on bail remains
available to him till investigation remains pending. But the right is lost once charge sheet has been
filed by the Investigation Officer. This right (to bail) does not get revived only because further
investigation is pending in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173, Cr. P.C.

In the case of Rupan Deal Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, the accused, a top-most police officer slapped a
senior lady IAS officer on her posterior at a dinner party in the presence of an elite gathering and
the Magistrate accepted the final report submitted by the police in the case initiated by the lady
officer under Sections 354/509, IPC without giving reasons therefore, despite the objections raised
by the complainant lady. The Supreme Court set aside the order and restored the case directing the
Magistrate to proceed with the case in accordance with Section 210 of Cr. P.C.

In a case where the wife had complained against her husband for misappropriating her Stridhan
and subsequently on a letter from her to the police that the matter has been settled amicably, further
investigation was dropped and no final report was sent to the Magistrate. The Court held that a
final report was required to be submitted to the Court in which FIR was still pending.

Sub-section (4) empowers the Magistrate to discharge the accused where the police officer has
released him on his own bond under Section 169 and has reported that there is no sufficient
evidence or reasonable suspicion against him. If the Magistrate agrees with the final report, he may
accept it and close the proceedings.

But where the Magistrate has reason to disagree with the final report submitted by the police
officer, he may take cognizance of the offence and in that case, the accused shall not be discharged.
xxiv | P a g e

It must, however, be noted that submission of final report by the investigating agency under
Section 173 (2) does not preclude further investigation in the case and supplementary reports can
be submitted by the Investigating Officer to the Magistrate notwithstanding that the Magistrate has
taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of final report submitted earlier.

In this context, the Supreme Court in Ramlal Narang v. Delhi Administration, has held that the
right of police to investigate further is not exhausted by submission of the final report under Section
173 (2) CrPC.

The High Court of Madras in Rangnathan v. State, held that in a case in which the complainant
and the accused, both filed complaints against each other, but the police in its final report to the
Magistrate did not refer to the complaint filed by the accused and his statement . Held that
cognizance could not be taken on such a one-sided report and the accused was liable to be set at
liberty because he was deprived of his right of proper projection of his defence.

The Magistrate cannot refuse to accept the charge-sheet submitted by the police on the ground that
it did not accompany the Forensic Science Laboratory Report, or it was not submitted within the
stipulated period of time fixed for particular police station.

But where the final report submitted by the police under Section 173(2) does not accompany all
the documents as required under sub-clause (5), the Magistrate will not be justified in taking
cognizance of offence on the basis of such an incomplete report and if h^ does so, his order would
be liable to be quashed.

The High Court of Bombay in Punjaram v. State of Maharashtra, held that an accused could claim
indefeasable right to be released on bail under Section 167 (2) Cr. P.C. in case police fails to file
a police report or charge-sheet within 90 days. In the instant case, submission of a proforma as
envisaged in Section 173 (2) by police without any accompaniments as envisaged in Section 173
(5) did not indicate complete of investigation.

Therefore, filing of report under Section 173 (2) in proforma as prescribed by statute without there
being any accompaniments or the investigation papers indicating completion of investigation had
xxv | P a g e

entitled the accused to claim his indefeasable right to be released on bail under Section 167 (2) of
Cr. P.C.

In all proceedings instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is required to furnish to the accused
copies of documents mentioned in Section 207 including those mentioned in Section 173(5) also.
Therefore, these documents are to be sent by the Police officer investigating the case along with
his final report to the Magistrate and also copies thereof be supplied to the accused. But sub-section
(5) does not confer a right on the accused to insist on supply of the original record.

It may be reiterated that the final report i.e. charge-sheet is to be forwarded to the Magistrate by
the officer-in-charge of the police station. Where a report was sent to the Court by Additional sub-
inspector of police who was officer-in-charge of police station at that time, it was held that he was
competent to file the final report because he was empowered to do so by a government order.

Sub-section (8) provides that the submission of the final report by the officer-in- charge of the
police station to the Court under Section 173(2) does not preclude further investigation of the case
by the investigating agency where deemed necessary.

However, before making further investigation, the police should seek formal permission from the
Court mentioning the fresh facts which have necessitated such investigation. Thus where the
charge-sheet against the accused was submitted under TADA on one day and a few days later an
additional charge-sheet under Section 120B and some other offences under IPC was filed against
the same accused, the Court held that the act of the Investigating Officer in filing two charge-
sheets could not be said to be mala fide in view of the circumstances of the case.

Though sub-section (8) permits further investigation in respect of an offence after a final report
under Section 173 (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, but the provision is only permissive
and therefore neither the informant nor the accused can demand further investigation as a matter
of right, after the submission of report by the police to the Court.

Thus in a case, of rape committed on a girl of five years who complained to her mother and the
mother in turn lodged an FIR. The statement of mother was recorded in course of investigation but
xxvi | P a g e

she died during the trial of the case. The prosecution prayed for recording the statement of the
victim (girl) herself which the trial Court permitted.

The accused challenged the validity of the order of the trial Court under Section 173 (8) but the
High Court refused to interfere in exercise of its revisional powers and held the order legal in view
of the circumstances of the case.

In Narendra Kumar Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the final report was submitted and before
the order was passed on such report, protest petition was filed by the informant and permission for
further investigation of case was sought by Anti-corruption Department as per Government
decision.

The Allahabad High Court held that since allegations of corruption were against police officer,
Government was fully justified in entrusting further investigation and the petitioner accused had
no locus standi to raise objection.

Where the Magistrate passed an order for further investigation without indicating as to in what
respect the investigation was deficient or what remained unearthed in the investigation, such an
order was liable to be set aside particularly, where investigation was carried out by two different
agencies and responsible police officers. There was also no evidence to show that the Investigation
Officer was in any way biased towards the complainant.

It must be stated that even prior to enforcement of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, number
of Courts including the Supreme Court have held that submission of charge-sheet itself would not
bring an end to the power of the investigating agency because the investigating agency is entitled
to make further investigation and bring further better material before the Court to connect the
accused with the alleged crime.

The Court have already found that the prosecution agency can make further investigation to find
whether the accused against whom a charge-sheet has already been filed can be booked for other
offences and some other accused persons can also be brought to the books of rules.
xxvii | P a g e

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India the entire investigation and law officer’s team of CBI was ad
idem in its opinion or filing of charge-sheet. Only the Director of Prosecution had dissenting
opinion on the basis of interpretation of legal evidence though that stage had not arrived. The
Director referred the matter for opinion to Attorney-General of India. Held, this was not in
accordance with law being not permissible.

Once a charge-sheet has been filed by the investigating agency under Section 173 (2) a subsequent
charge-sheet in the same case cannot be filed without further investigation and without obtaining
evidence. So also the Magistrate cannot order further investigation after taking cognizance of the
offence on police report and appearance of the accused in pursuance of the process issued against
him.

However, where the collected materials were misunderstood by the investigating officer and new
light was thrown by the superiors, the I.O. could certainly file an additional charge-sheet in the
light of guidance obtained from his superior officials.

The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Sampat Lal has categorically ruled that the judiciary
can get a case investigated by special agencies such as CBI. The appointment of such agencies or
Special officers with the direction to inquire into the commission of an offence can be permissible
when it has been shown that there has not been proper investigation in a particular case.

The provisions of Section 173 (8) of the Code make it abundantly clear that the Court may require
the investigating machinery to produce further evidence if it comes to the light of the Court that
the investigation appears to be incomplete.

Therefore, merely because the additional statements which are recorded subsequent to the filing
of the charge-sheet were allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge and that too before framing of
the charges cannot be said to be arbitrary or improper exercise of jurisdiction by the learned A.D.J.

The Kerala High Court in Sathy M. Pillai v. Sarma, held that further investigation under Section
173 (8) may be ordered in case of criminal negligence. In the instant case, there was death of a
patient in hospital run by the accused. The accused had raised plea that she was not afforded
sufficient opportunity of being heard by the Government.
xxviii | P a g e

The Court found that the circumstances of the case required further investigation in the matter.
Therefore, directions were given to the investigating officer to conduct further investigation and
submit the final report under Section 173 (8).

Adopting the procedure laid down under Section 210, Cr. P.C., the Court directed to stay the
proceedings initiated by accused for quashing of complaint on basis of private complaint and
ordered further investigation in the case.

In Ladu Devi v. State of Rajasthan, the question of applicability of bar of res judicata/issue estoppel
on summoning of additional accused [under further investigation under Section 173 (8)] came up
for consideration before the High Court of Rajasthan.

Answering in the affirmative the Court held that where the Trial Court on earlier occasion in
application under Section 319, Cr. P.C. had declined to summon petitioners as additional accused
and the revision against that order was dismissed, the order thereby had attained finality. Therefore,
the petitioners could not be added as additional accused on the basis of supplementary charge-
sheet submitted by the police under Section 173.

The Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.S. Peter observed that carrying out of further
investigation even after filing of charge sheet is a statutory right of police and therefore law does
not mandate taking of prior permission of the Court for further investigation in the case.

However, a distinction has to be made between further investigation and re-investigation in the
context of Section 173, Cr. P.C. whereas reinvestigation without prior permission is necessarily
forbidden, further investigation is not.
xxix | P a g e

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Batuk Lal's Commentary on The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 By Batuk Lal, 2016
 Code Of Criminal Procedure by SOHONI Revised by Justice M L Singhal, 21st Edition
 Commentary on the Code of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, By S.C.Sarkar Foreword
by Indira Shah, 2017, 4 th Edition
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE by C K Thakker ‘Takwani’ and M C Thakker, 2014
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (Student Edition) By RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL,
2014, 1st Edition
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 by D D BASU, 2014, 5th Edition
 The Code of Criminal Procedure by Dr. N.V.Paranjape, 6th edition, 2017

WEBLIOGRAPHY

 delhihighcourt.nic.in
 epgp.inflibnet.ac.in
 https://blog.ipleaders.in
 https://blog.scconline.com
 https://districts.ecourts.gov.in
 https://indiankanoon.org
 https://odishapolice.gov.in
 https://www.casemine.com
 https://www.lawteacher.net
 https://www.livelaw.in
 https://www.oecd.org
 https://www.sci.gov.in
 policewb.gov.in
 www.indialegallive.com
 www.nia.gov.in
 www.prsindia.org
 www.shareyouressays.com