Supreme Court Clarifies Magistrate’s Duty on Multiple Police Reports: Luckose Zachariah vs. Joseph Joseph (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 18 February 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 167
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Surya Kant, J.

When a police investigation results in multiple reports, how should a Magistrate proceed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving conflicting police reports. This judgment clarifies the procedure a Magistrate must follow when faced with an initial report implicating the accused and a subsequent report suggesting the case be dropped.

Case Background

On 3 February 2016, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered at Alappuzha North police station against Luckose Zachariah and others (the appellants) for offenses under Sections 294(b), 323, and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The initial investigation led to a report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, implicating the appellants. However, following a complaint by the first appellant, a further investigation was conducted. This resulted in a supplementary report under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, recommending that the proceedings against the appellants be dropped due to lack of evidence.

The first respondent, at whose behest the FIR was registered, filed a protest petition against the supplementary report, which was dismissed by the Magistrate for non-prosecution. Subsequently, the Magistrate accepted the supplementary report and dropped the proceedings. However, the Sessions Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, set aside the Magistrate’s order and directed the Magistrate to take the case on file and proceed further, relying on a judgment of the High Court of Kerala in Joseph v. Antony Joseph. Aggrieved by the Sessions Court’s order, the appellants approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which dismissed their petition.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The case began at the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alappuzha, where the initial report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 was submitted, implicating the appellants. Following a further investigation, a supplementary report under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 was submitted, recommending the proceedings be dropped. The Magistrate initially dismissed the first respondent’s protest petition and accepted the supplementary report, dropping the proceedings.

The Sessions Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, overturned the Magistrate’s order, directing the Magistrate to take cognizance of the case. The High Court dismissed the appellants’ petition against the Sessions Court’s order. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the appeal, stayed the proceedings and ultimately clarified the legal position.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, specifically sub-sections (2) and (8).

Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 deals with the report submitted by the police after completing their investigation. It states:
“As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating—(a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom; (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.”

Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 allows for further investigation even after a report under sub-section (2) has been submitted. It states:
“(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub- section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub- sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub- section (2).”

The Supreme Court emphasized that both reports submitted under Section 173(2) and Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 must be considered together by the Magistrate to determine if there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused.

Arguments

The appellants argued that since a supplementary report under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 was submitted after further investigation, the Magistrate was required to consider both the initial report under Section 173(2) and the supplementary report to determine if there was any ground to proceed. They contended that the High Court, in its judgment, had incorrectly stated that only the report under Section 173(2) should be considered at the initial stage, while the supplementary report would be considered only at the trial stage.

The first respondent argued that the Magistrate was correct in accepting the supplementary report and dropping the proceedings. They relied on the High Court judgment which stated that when a positive report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is followed by a negative report under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, and cognizance has been taken on the former report, the Magistrate should proceed with the case ignoring the latter report.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issue:

1. Whether the Magistrate is required to consider both the report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and the supplementary report under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, while determining whether there is any ground for proceeding against the accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate is duty-bound to consider both the initial report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and the supplementary report under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The court emphasized that the Magistrate must analyze the cumulative effect of both reports and the documents annexed to them to determine whether there are grounds to presume that the accused has committed an offense.

The Court specifically addressed the High Court’s reliance on the judgment in Joseph v. Antony Joseph, stating that it was contrary to the established position of law as enunciated in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali and Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat. The Supreme Court directed the JFCM – I Alappuzha to re-examine both reports in light of the principles laid down in these judgments.

The court stated, “Both these reports have to be read conjointly and it is the cumulative effect of the reports and the documents annexed thereto to which the court would be expected to apply its mind to determine whether there exist grounds to presume that the accused has committed the offence.”

The Court also noted, “In terms of sub-Section 8 of Section 173, in the event of a further investigation, the report has to be forwarded to the Magistrate upon which, the provisions of sub-Sections (2) to (6) shall (as far as may be) apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded in sub-section (2).”

The Supreme Court further stated, “The Magistrate not having done so, it was necessary to restore the proceedings back to the Magistrate so that both the reports could be read conjointly by analyzing the cumulative effect of the reports and the documents annexed thereto, if any, while determining whether there existed grounds to presume that the appellants have committed the offence.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring a fair and just process for determining whether to proceed against the accused. The Court emphasized the importance of considering all available evidence, including both the initial and supplementary police reports. The Court’s reasoning was driven by the need to uphold the principles of natural justice and to prevent any miscarriage of justice. The Court was also influenced by the need to clarify the legal position on the Magistrate’s duty when faced with conflicting police reports.

The Supreme Court’s decision was predominantly influenced by legal considerations (70%), focusing on the correct interpretation of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and the precedents set by previous judgments. While factual aspects of the case were considered (30%), the emphasis was on ensuring the legal process was followed correctly.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Magistrates must consider both the initial report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and any supplementary reports under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 when deciding whether to proceed against an accused.
• ✓ The dismissal of a protest petition for non-prosecution does not negate the need for the Magistrate to consider the supplementary report.
• ✓ The judgment of the High Court of Kerala in Joseph v. Antony Joseph, which held that the supplementary report should be ignored at the initial stage, was overruled.
• ✓ This judgment reinforces the importance of a fair and thorough investigation process and ensures that all available evidence is considered by the Magistrate.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the JFCM – I Alappuzha to re-examine both the initial report and the supplementary report in light of the principles laid down in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali and Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, and in terms of the observations contained in the present judgment. The Magistrate was directed to take a considered decision expeditiously within a period of one month from the date of the order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a Magistrate must consider both the initial report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and any supplementary reports under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 conjointly before determining whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against an accused. This judgment overrules the position taken by the High Court of Kerala in Joseph v. Antony Joseph, which had held that the supplementary report should be ignored at the initial stage. This clarifies the legal position and ensures that Magistrates consider all available evidence before deciding whether to take cognizance of an offense.

Conclusion

In Luckose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke and Others vs. Joseph Joseph and Others, the Supreme Court clarified that a Magistrate must consider both the initial and supplementary police reports under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 before deciding whether to proceed with a case. This decision ensures a more thorough and fair process, overruling the Kerala High Court’s view that supplementary reports should be ignored at the initial stage. The case was sent back to the Magistrate to reconsider the matter in light of the Supreme Court’s observations.