‘Investigating Officer must make complete entries of all columns in chargesheet; Role played by accused in the crime should be separately & clearly mentioned’: Supreme Court
Justices Sanjiv Khanna & S.V.N. Bhatti [01-05-2024]

Read Order: SHARIF AHMED AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER [SC- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2357 OF 2024]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, May 2, 2024: Taking note of the fact that in some states the chargesheets merely carry a reproduction of the details mentioned by the complainant in the FIR without any elucidation on the evidence, the Supreme Court has held that an Investigating Officer must make clear and complete entries of all columns in the chargesheet so that the Court can clearly understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on the file.

Adjudicating upon a batch of criminal appeals, the Division Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti further added, “Statements under Section 161 of the Code and related documents have to be enclosed with the list of witnesses. The role played by the accused in the crime should be separately and clearly mentioned in the chargesheet, for each of the accused persons.”

The appellants, in this case, had been involved in a drawn-out litigation with several parties over the ownership of a property. Appellant No.2 – Sharif Ahmad and Appellant No.3 – Anwar Ahmad (since deceased), purchased a part in the subject property on behalf of their partnership firm, while Appellant No.1 – Vakil Ahmad (since deceased) had done so in his individual capacity. The challenge before the Top Court related to the First Information Report filed by Respondent No.2/complainant - Mohd. Iqbal, under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC against the appellants. 

The FIR stated that the appellants had agreed to sell the subject property to Respondent No. 2 and had received part payment for the registry of the subject property. However, the appellants did not register the property and also failed to refund the concerned amount to Respondent No. 2. A complaint was filed against Respondent No. 2 by relatives of the appellants on account of receiving threats to their life. The appellants challenged the FIR before the Allahabad High Court and sought quashing of the proceedings. 

The High Court stayed the arrest of the appellant until filing of the chargesheet. In 2016, a chargesheet was filed against the appellants under Sections 405 and 506 IPC. The appellants approached the Allahabad High Court seeking the quashing of the proceedings but the same was dismissed. Hence, the appellants filed the present appeal before the Top Court.

The chargesheet stated that the offence under Section 420 was not made out. The offence of cheating under Section 415 of the IPC requires dishonest inducement, delivering of a property as a result of the inducement, and damage or harm to the person so induced. The offence of cheating is established when the dishonest intention exists at the time when the contract or agreement is entered, for the essential ingredient of the offence of cheating consists of fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him to deliver any property, to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he had not been deceived. As per the investigating officer, no fraudulent and dishonest inducement was made out or established at the time when the agreement was entered.

It was further opined that the threat communicated or uttered by the person named in the chargesheet as an accused, should be uttered and communicated by the said person to threaten the victim for the purpose of influencing her mind. The word ‘threat’ refers to the intent to inflict punishment, loss or pain on the other. Injury involves doing an illegal act.

“Mere expression of any words without any intent to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring home an offence under Section 506 of the IPC. The material and evidence must be placed on record to show that the threat was made with an intent to cause alarm to the complainant, or to cause them to do, or omit to do an act. Considering the statutory mandate, offence under Section 506 is not shown even if we accept the allegation as correct”, the Bench said.

Thus, quashing the chargesheet and the summoning order, the Top Court discharged the appellants. 

In another appeal, the assertions made in the FIR alleged that the accused were frauds who had taken bainama (earnest money on the property), but thereafter were making excuses. The complainant had visited the accused at their house who had then threatened them to implicate them in false cases. They denied having received the money. In this case, the Bench allowed the appeal and directed that in the event of the appellant being arrested, he shall be released on bail.

The Bench also emphasized on the need for a Magistrate to be cautious in examining whether the facts of the case disclose a civil or a criminal wrong. Attempts at initiating vexatious criminal proceedings should be thwarted early on, as a summoning order, or even a direction to register an FIR, has grave consequences for setting the criminal proceedings in motion, it added.

In the third appeal, the facts suggested that the complainant and Respondent No. 2 – Rajesh Wangvelu had made a written complaint alleging that two officers of the National Research Laboratory for Conservation of Cultural Property, Lucknow had attacked him with a helmet and lathi, and had threatened to kill him. The FIR was registered against both accused persons under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC. A chargesheet was also filed  with an addition of Sections 308, 325 and 120B IPC, and impleading the appellant-Manager Singh (Director) as an accused.

The Bench held that the non- bailable warrants issued against Manager Singh were unsustainable. The Bench quashed the summoning order against Manager Singh after noting that the chargesheet was bereft of all details and particulars.

Referring to the judgments in Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others [LQ/SC/2007/1225]  and Vikas v. State of Rajasthan [LQ/SC/2013/901], the Bench concluded, “It is a settled position of law that non-bailable warrants cannot be issued in a routine manner and that the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed unless necessitated by the larger interest of public and the State. While there are no comprehensive set of guidelines for the issuance of non- bailable warrants, this Court has observed on several occasions that non- bailable warrants should not be issued, unless the accused is charged with a heinous crime, and is likely to evade the process of law or tamper/destroy evidence.”