Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Special Judge could disregard the police final report and, on an independent assessment of the materials collected in investigation, frame charge and take cognizance despite the police opinion that no case was made out.
Analysis: The settled position is that a judicial officer is not bound by the conclusion in a police report. On receipt of a report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Magistrate or Special Judge may independently examine the statements and materials gathered during investigation and may take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of that Code even if the police opines that no offence is made out. The court is not compelled to accept the conclusion of the investigating officer and is not required, in such a situation, to proceed only under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code. In the present case, the Special Judge was aware of both reports and had reached a prima facie view that charge deserved to be framed; that approach was legally permissible.
Conclusion: The Special Judge was entitled to ignore the police conclusion and frame charge on the materials available; the High Court erred in setting aside that order.
Ratio Decidendi: A Magistrate or Special Judge may independently apply judicial mind to the materials in the police report and take cognizance or frame charge notwithstanding a contrary police opinion that no offence is made out.