TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a victim or informant was entitled to notice and an opportunity of hearing before the Magistrate accepted the final report and took cognizance, especially when names of some accused shown in the First Information Report were dropped in the final report; (ii) Whether the protest petition could be rejected as not maintainable after cognizance and whether additional accused could be brought in only under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issue (i): Whether a victim or informant was entitled to notice and an opportunity of hearing before the Magistrate accepted the final report and took cognizance, especially when names of some accused shown in the First Information Report were dropped in the final report.
Analysis: The right to notice attaches when the Magistrate is considering a police report that proposes to drop proceedings wholly or in part, or to proceed against only some of the persons named in the First Information Report. Where the informant or victim is prejudicially affected by such a report, the Magistrate must give notice and an opportunity of hearing. In the present case, the petitioner was treated as a victim and interested person, had been instrumental in pursuing investigation, and was not put on notice before the final report was taken on file. Acceptance of the final report in such circumstances was therefore contrary to the mandatory requirement of hearing the affected informant or victim.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to notice before cognizance was taken, and the order taking cognizance without notice was unsustainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the protest petition could be rejected as not maintainable after cognizance and whether additional accused could be brought in only under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: A belated protest petition cannot be rejected merely on the ground that cognizance has already been taken where the informant or victim had not been notified at the stage of consideration of the final report. The Magistrate's power to consider the protest petition and to direct further investigation remains available in appropriate cases, and such exercise does not amount to impermissibly reviewing the earlier order. The finding that additional accused can be added only under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was too restrictive in the context of a challenge to acceptance of a final report that had excluded persons named in the First Information Report. The proper course was to hear the petitioner on the protest petition and decide it on merits.
Conclusion: The protest petition ought not to have been dismissed as not maintainable, and the reasoning limiting relief to Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was incorrect.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded to the extent that the order taking cognizance and the dismissal of the protest petition were set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the protest petition on merits after hearing the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a final report drops persons named in the First Information Report, the Magistrate must notify the affected informant or victim and hear objections before accepting the report, and a protest petition cannot be discarded merely because cognizance has been taken without such notice.
TaxTMI 
