Sanchayita Lahkar

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an application seeking the quashing of an order summoning an accused under dowry harassment charges, holding that no illegality arises when cognizance is taken solely against a chargesheeted accused without issuing notice to the informant. The Single Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, recorded that “no prejudice is caused to the informant when the Magistrate has only issued notice to the charge-sheeted persons as in the present case.”

Justice Manju Rani Chauhan delivered the decision on an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging an order dated 30 January 2024, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 16, Allahabad, in Criminal Case No. 04/2024 (State vs. Tripurari), arising out of Case Crime No. 436/2023 registered at Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Also Read: Orissa High Court Declines Writ Jurisdiction over Cooperative Appointment Dispute, Records ‘Petitioner Has Statutory Remedy’ and Finds ‘No Public Law Element Involved’

The High Court further recorded that “ample opportunity is there for the informant to place evidence and materials on record during course of trial, on the basis of which they can be arrayed as accused persons under the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C.”

The Court dismissed the applicant’s plea, which also sought directions for the Magistrate to provide a hearing to the informant prior to cognizance.

The Bench heard arguments from Mr. Yashpal Yadav, counsel for the applicant; Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, counsel for opposite party no. 2; and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Additional Government Advocate, for the State.

The proceedings stemmed from a first information report lodged on 23 August 2023 at 20:55 hours by the applicant, Smt. Suman Prajapati, against six persons, alleging mental and physical harassment over additional dowry demands. The police, upon completion of the investigation, submitted a charge sheet dated 19 November 2023 only against Tripurari Prajapati. A final report was simultaneously submitted in favour of five other persons named in the FIR: Santlal, Smt. Lalmani Devi, Smt. Pratibha, Smt. Sandhya, and Divya.

The Magistrate took cognizance on 30 January 2024 and summoned Tripurari Prajapati, fixing the matter for appearance on 28 February 2024.

The applicant contested this action, arguing that the cognizance order was passed without affording her an opportunity of being heard. Counsel for the applicant submitted that as per Section 173(2)(ii) Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer was required to communicate the action taken to the person who initially provided information regarding the commission of the offence. The counsel submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to inform the applicant about the submission of the charge sheet and final report.

It was argued that this omission was in violation of the statutory mandate under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., rendering the submission of the charge sheet improper and illegal. The applicant further submitted that the Magistrate was obliged to issue notice to the informant and hear her before taking cognizance and summoning only one of the accused while excluding the others.

The counsel for the applicant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwat Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Another, contending that non-issuance of notice before considering the final report regarding the exonerated persons violated principles of natural justice.

The State, through the learned Additional Government Advocate, responded that issuing notice to the informant at this stage would prolong proceedings unnecessarily and that no illegality existed in taking cognizance solely against the chargesheeted accused. It was submitted that the applicant retained the right to place evidence during trial and contest the exclusion of others.

The Court examined the legal framework, noting that Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, governs information to the police and their powers of investigation. The judgment recorded that Section 154(2) Cr.P.C. requires that a copy of the FIR be provided free of cost to the informant, and Section 173(2)(ii) Cr.P.C. obliges the Investigating Officer to communicate the action taken to the informant.

The Court recorded, “Section 173(2)(ii) Cr.P.C. states that the officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.”

The Court proceeded to discuss the options available to a Magistrate upon receipt of a police report under Section 173(2)(i) Cr.P.C., stating that “the Magistrate may take one of three following things:- (i) He may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process; or, (ii) he may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding; or, (iii) he may direct further investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and require the police to submit a further report.”

The Court referred to the judgment in Bhagwat Singh, recording that “the Magistrate must give a notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity of being heard at the time of consideration of the report” when deciding not to proceed against some individuals mentioned in the FIR.

However, in the present case, the Court stated that “issuance of notice to informant giving opportunity to him to address the Magistrate with respect to non-charge-sheeted persons would prolong the matter causing unnecessary delay” and that “the right of the informant is not in any way affected in case if the Magistrate has taken cognizance only against charge-sheeted persons without issuing notice to the informant with respect to the persons who are named in the FIR but have not been charge-sheeted.”

The Court recorded that the principles laid down in Bhagwat Singh and other judgments relate to situations where the Magistrate drops proceedings or decides not to proceed against certain individuals, whereas in this case, the Magistrate had taken cognizance and summoned the chargesheeted accused.

Justice Chauhan further recorded that “the stage of Section 319 of Cr.P.C., has not yet been reached in the present case” and that “it is not fatal to the powers of the Magistrate to take cognizance of offence and issue process against those who have not been arrayed as accused persons by the police while filing the charge sheet.”

The Court cited India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Another, where it was held that the Magistrate is not bound by the police report and retains discretion to take cognizance and summon others if necessary.

Also Read: "‘Serious Doubt Whether Even Section 304 Applies’: Supreme Court Cites Medical Uncertainty, Declines to Reinstate Murder Conviction in 36-Year-Old Case"

After considering the rival submissions and statutory provisions, the Court held, “I am of the view that no interference is called for in the present matter. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.”

The judgment concluded with the acknowledgment that “the Court would like to appreciate the hard work put in by Ms. Shreya Shukla, Research Associate, who has drawn attention to detail and the same shows in her work of providing legal assistance in this matter.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Lalji Yadav, Yashpal Yadav Advocate,

For the Respondent:  Sanjay Kr. Srivastava Advocate, Amit Singh Chauhan Additional Government Advocate.

Case Title: Smt. Suman Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:33440

Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 25836 of 2024

Bench: Justice Manju Rani Chauhan

[Read/Download order]