Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.164, 190(1)(b), 209,
319 – Power of Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report in terms of s.190 (1)(b) CrPC to issue summons to any person not arraigned as an accused in the police report and whose name also not featuring in column (2) of such report – Held: If there are materials before the Magistrate showing complicity of persons other than those arraigned as accused or named in column 2 of the police report in commission of an offence, the Magistrate at that stage can summon such persons as well, upon taking cognizance of the offence – A statement made under s.164 of the Code could also be considered for such purpose.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. None of the authorities limit or restrict the power or jurisdiction of the Magistrate or Court of Session in summoning an accused upon taking cognizance, whose name may not feature in the F.I.R. or police report. [Para 20][812-D] Dharam Pal and Others v. State of Haryana and Another (2014) 3 SCC 306 : [2013] 13 SCR 1052; Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (2014) 3 SCC 92 : [2014] 2 SCR 1; Raghubans Dubey v. State of Bihar AIR 1967 SC 1167 : [1967] 2 SCR 423 – followed.
2. In the present case, the name of the accused had transpired from the statement made by the victim under Section
164 of the Code.In the subject-proceeding, the Magistrate acted on the basis of an independent application filed by the de facto complainant. If there are materials before the Magistrate showing complicity of persons other than those arraigned as accused or named in column 2 of the police report in commission of an offence, the Magistrate at that stage could summon such persons as well upon taking cognizance of the offence. For summoning persons upon taking cognizance of an offence, the Magistrate has to examine the materials available before him for coming to the conclusion that apart from those sent up by the police some other persons are involved in the offence. These materials need not remain confined to the police report, charge sheet or the F.I.R. A statement made under Section 164 of the Code could also be considered for such purpose.Turning to the facts of the present case, there is no error in the order of the Magistrate, which was affirmed by the High Court. [Paras 21 & 22][812-E-H; 813-A-B] SWIL Ltd. v. State of Delhi and Another (2001) 6 SCC
670 : [2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 527; Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another (1996) 4 SCC 495 : [1996]
2 Suppl. SCR 125; Kishun Singh & Others v. State of Bihar (1993) 2 SCC 16 : [1993] 1 SCR 31; Nisar and Another v. State of U.P. (1995) 2 SCC 23 : [1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 368; Balveer Singh and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Another (2016) 6 SCC 680 : [2016] 2 SCR 504; P.C. Gulati v. Lajya Ram and Others AIR 1966 SC 595 : [1966] 1 SCR 560 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.