Was the Complainant Left in the Dark?: Supreme Court Raps Rajasthan High Court for Ignoring Victim’s Right to be Informed About Dropping of Accused

“It does not appear from the impugned order that the High Court addressed the grievance… The cryptic order has rightly been criticized”— In a judgment that underscores the victim’s right to be informed and participate meaningfully in the criminal justice process, the Supreme Court of India restored a petition filed by a domestic violence survivor, Madhu Vyas, against her in-laws, after noting that the Rajasthan High Court failed to address her fundamental grievance—that she was never informed by the police about the dropping of serious charges against key accused.

The Court, speaking through a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, observed:
“Section 173(2)(ii) casts an obligation on the Investigating Officer to communicate the action taken to the person by whom information was first given. The High Court failed to examine whether this was done.”

“Despite Allegations in Her 164 Statement, No Action Against In-Laws”: SC Flags Investigative Lapse and Judicial Oversight

The appellant, Madhu Vyas, had lodged a complaint in 2019 alleging physical, sexual, and emotional abuse by her husband and in-laws, invoking offences under Sections 498A, 406, 376, 511, 354A, 354D, 323, and 341 of the IPC. Notably, she specifically named her brother-in-law and father-in-law, accusing them of sexual misconduct.

Yet, after investigation, the police filed a charge sheet only against the husband, and no action was taken against the other three accused, despite her detailed statement under Section 164 CrPC.

Madhu Vyas contended that she was never provided a copy of the final report, nor was she informed of the exclusion of the in-laws as accused. This omission, she argued, deprived her of her legal right to protest, which is triggered by the communication of the police report as mandated by law.

The Supreme Court noted this critical lapse: “It does not appear from the impugned order that the High Court addressed the grievance of the appellant that she was not served the police report under Section 173(2)(ii) CrPC.”

It added: “The cryptic order passed by the High Court has rightly been criticised by the appellant.”

“Protest Petition Denied Because Police Never Told Her”: Supreme Court Affirms Victim’s Right Under Section 173(2)(ii)

Referring to the language of Section 173(2)(ii), the bench observed:

“It is the statutory obligation of the Investigating Officer to inform the first informant or complainant of the result of the investigation.”

Failure to comply, the Court reasoned, frustrates the victim’s right to challenge wrongful exclusion of accused persons or to seek further investigation.

By not acknowledging this lapse, the High Court failed to discharge its constitutional duty, said the bench.

“We are of the considered view that the High Court erred in not appreciating the grievance of the appellant in the correct perspective.”

High Court’s “Cryptic” Dismissal Set Aside, Case Restored for Fresh Consideration

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 10.10.2024, and restored Criminal Misc. Petition No. 378 of 2022 to its original file. The Court also directed that this petition be heard along with Criminal Misc. Petition No. 8362 of 2021—another plea filed by the complainant pending before the High Court.

“Interest of justice would be sufficiently served if Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.378 of 2022 is revived. The same may be heard with Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8362 of 2021 to avoid conflict of decisions.”

The Court further directed that the matter be disposed of preferably within four months.

“Justice Begins With Information”: A Reminder of Victims' Participatory Rights

This judgment serves as a strong reminder that fair trial rights apply equally to victims, and that procedural lapses by police or lower courts cannot deprive survivors of their legal remedies.

By stressing the mandatory nature of Section 173(2)(ii) and holding that a complainant must be informed if the police chooses to drop or exclude accused persons from the chargesheet, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that justice begins with information.

Date of Decision: 4 August 2025