---

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case pertains to the interpretation and compliance requirements of Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) regarding the submission of a police report. The Supreme Court emphasized the significance of a police report as a crucial prosecutorial document. It held that non-compliance with procedural requirements under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. could lead to serious legal consequences. The judgment elaborated on the duties of the police to submit a comprehensive chargesheet and delineated the Magistrate’s discretion on such reports. The Court reinforced procedural mandates to ensure justice, efficiency, and accountability in criminal investigations and prosecutions.

Keywords:

1. Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
2. Police Report
3. Chargesheet Compliance
4. Magistrate’s Discretion
5. Criminal Procedure

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title

Dablu Kujur v. The State of Jharkhand

ii) Case Number

Criminal Appeal No. 1511 of 2024

iii) Judgement Date

March 12, 2024

iv) Court

Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum

Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal

vi) Author

Justice Bela M. Trivedi

vii) Citation

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 614

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

1. Section 173(2), Cr.P.C.
2. Section 161, Cr.P.C.
3. Section 167(2), Cr.P.C.
4. Sections 156, 169, and 170, Cr.P.C.

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any)

None mentioned.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects

Criminal Procedure and Evidence Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arose from a bail denial in B.A. No. 11895 of 2022 by the Jharkhand High Court concerning FIR No. 238/2022. The charges were filed under Sections 302, 120-B/34 IPC and Sections 25(1-B) A, 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act. The appellant challenged procedural lapses in the chargesheet filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court addressed recurring inadequacies in police reports and emphasized adherence to procedural mandates.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. An FIR was lodged implicating the appellant in a murder case under Sections 302, 120-B/34 IPC and Arms Act provisions.
2. A chargesheet was submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., but it was deemed deficient in particulars.
3. The appellant challenged these deficiencies, citing a lack of compliance with procedural requirements under Cr.P.C., leading to potential prejudice.
4. The trial court observed that the prosecution was nearing conclusion, making bail unjustifiable at this stage.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether non-compliance with Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. invalidates the chargesheet?
2. What are the implications of incomplete reports under Section 173(2), particularly for ongoing trials?
3. Can a Magistrate take cognizance based on a procedurally deficient chargesheet?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Procedural Lapses in Chargesheet: The appellant argued the chargesheet lacked essential details as mandated by Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
2. Prejudice to Defense: He contended that incomplete police reports compromised his right to a fair trial.
3. Cognizance on Incomplete Report: Reliance on deficient chargesheets for cognizance violated judicial mandates.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Substantial Compliance: The State argued that procedural lapses in chargesheets do not vitiate the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
2. Pendency of Investigation: Incomplete documents did not affect trial progress, as permitted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
3. Judicial Oversight: The prosecution emphasized the Court’s discretion in managing trial timelines, regardless of procedural gaps.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Mandatory Compliance: Section 173(2) requires a complete report, detailing accused persons, evidence, and investigative outcomes.
2. Judicial Discretion: Magistrates retain discretion in accepting or rejecting incomplete chargesheets but must ensure fairness in trials.
3. Impact of Non-compliance: Non-compliance under Section 173(2) does not automatically vitiate chargesheets if substantive evidence supports prosecution.

b. Obiter Dicta

1. Lapses in procedural compliance must be strictly viewed by courts to uphold fairness.
2. Directions were issued to police officers for future adherence to procedural mandates.

c. Guidelines

1. Comprehensive Reporting: Police must submit exhaustive reports under Section 173(2), addressing all investigative aspects.
2. Mandatory Documentation: Investigative documents under Section 173(5) must accompany chargesheets.
3. Prosecution Oversight: Non-compliance must be rectified promptly to ensure judicial efficiency.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment underscores the imperative of procedural rigor in criminal investigations. It reinforces the balance between investigative flexibility and judicial scrutiny, ensuring fairness and justice.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Anr., (1985) 2 SCC 537
2. Satya Narain Musadi v. State of Bihar, (1980) 3 SCC 152
3. Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI, (2007) 8 SCC 770
4. CBI v. Kapil Wadhwan, [2024] 1 SCR 677

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973