CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Magistrate can summon a person not arraigned in the police report – Apex Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Apex court decided the question in recent judgment (NAHAR SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. D.D 16 March 2022) whether a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence based on a police report in terms of Section 190 (1)(b) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) can issue summons to any person not arraigned as an accused in the police report and whose name also does not feature in column (2) of such report. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has opined on this question in the affirmative in the judgment and same was challenged in Apex court.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (1860 Code) on 8th August 2012 on the basis of police report. The police report had named two individuals as accused Yogesh and Rupa. The police report was made on the basis of an F.I.R made by the mother of a lady victim (prosecutrix) on 9th May 2012 in Police Station Chhatari, sub-district Shikarpur in the district of Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh. In her initial statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code, the name of Nahar Singh did not figure. The chargesheet was submitted subsequently, in which Yogesh and Rupa were arraigned as accused. The victim when produced before the ACJM, Bulandshahr and her statement under Section 164 of the Code was recorded on 14th May 2012.  In that statement, she had disclosed the names of the accused Rupa, Yogesh as also the appellant herein-Nahar Singh, as the persons who had committed rape upon her.

The de facto complainant, being mother of the victim thereafter had filed an application before the Court of the CJM praying for an order requiring appearance of the appellant before the Court. CJM found that there was no ground to summon the appellant for trial and the said application was dismissed. De facto complainant filed revision to session court. And same was set aside and remanded back to CJM and ordered to pass lawful order. After that CJM summoned the appellant Nahar Singh and appellant approach session court against the summoning order but same was dismissed. After that Appellant approached the High Court but same was dismissed.

Appellant Nahar Singh approached the Apex Court, it has been observed that the power of the Magistrate is not exercisable only in respect of persons whose names appear in column (2) of the chargesheet, apart from those who are arraigned as accused in the police report. The Magistrate could summon such persons as well upon taking cognizance of the offence.

Apex Court held that for summoning persons upon taking cognizance of an offence, the Magistrate has to examine the materials available before him for coming to the conclusion that apart from those sent up by the police some other persons are involved in the offence. These materials need not remain confined to the police report, charge sheet or the F.I.R.  A statement made under Section 164 of the Code could also be considered for such purpose.  Appeal Dismissed.

D.D: - 16 March, 2022  

Nahar singh versus The state of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

Latest Legal News