Case Note & Summary
The applicant, an assistant teacher at Faizul Ulum Urdu Primary School, filed FIR No. 342 of 2016 on 26-07-2016 at Nanalpeth Police Station, alleging that the school headmaster, respondent No. 2, misbehaved with her when she requested her salary for ten months. The police registered offence under Sections 354 and 354-A of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the investigating officer filed a 'B' summary report, concluding that the FIR was false. On 11-05-2017, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parbhani, accepted the 'B' summary without issuing notice to the informant and without recording any application of mind. The informant, aggrieved by this order, filed the present criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the acceptance. She contended that the Magistrate's order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the law laid down in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and other authoritative precedents. She argued that she was entitled to a hearing before the Magistrate decided not to take cognizance, and that the order was also influenced by the political clout of the accused. The State was represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, and the court held that no notice was required to be issued to the accused at this stage because cognizance had not yet been taken. The High Court, after examining the impugned order and the legal position, found that the Magistrate had not given any notice to the informant before accepting the 'B' summary. Relying on Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, Gangadhar Janardhan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, and Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, the court reiterated that when a Magistrate decides not to take cognizance of the offence or drops proceedings against any person named in the FIR, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard. The court emphasized that the informant has a recognized interest in ensuring that the FIR culminates in the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process, and that principles of natural justice mandate prior hearing. The court also noted the established practice of allowing the informant to file a protest petition. Consequently, the application was allowed, the impugned order dated 11-05-2017 was quashed and set aside, and the Magistrate was directed to decide the report afresh after giving the informant an opportunity to file a protest petition and be heard, in accordance with the cited authorities.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Police Report - Informant's Right to Hearing - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 173, 190(1)(c) - The informant who lodged the FIR is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop proceedings; the failure to provide such hearing prejudices the informant and violates natural justice - Held that the Magistrate must issue notice to the informant before accepting a 'B' summary report (Paras 6-8). B) Criminal Procedure - Police Report - Magistrate's Discretion - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 190(1)(c) - A Magistrate is not bound to accept the police report; he may disagree and take cognizance of the offence, and where the report recommends closure, the informant must be heard to decide whether to accept or reject it - Held that the impugned order of acceptance of 'B' summary without hearing the informant was illegal and set aside; matter remitted for fresh consideration (Paras 8-9). C) Criminal Procedure - Practice - Protest Petition - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Though not provided in the Code, the practice of filing a protest petition by the informant has been recognized since Bhagwant Singh; the informant has the right to make submissions and request the Magistrate to take cognizance despite the police report - Held that the informant must be given opportunity to file a protest petition (Paras 6, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Magistrate's acceptance of 'B' summary report without notice to the informant was illegal and liable to be set aside under Section 482 CrPC?
Final Decision
The application was allowed. The learned Magistrate's order dated 11-05-2017 accepting the 'B' summary report was quashed and set aside. The Magistrate was directed to decide the report afresh, giving the applicant-informant an opportunity to file a protest petition and to be heard, in accordance with the authorities cited.
Law Points
- Informant must be given opportunity of being heard before Magistrate accepts 'B' summary report
- Magistrate not bound to accept police report
- power of court under Section 190(1)(c) CrPC
- natural justice requires notice to informant
- practice of filing protest petition recognized
