In a landmark judgment addressing procedural lapses in criminal proceedings, the Allahabad High Court quashed the cognizance and subsequent proceedings in Jagat Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:175907). The Court, presided by Justice Saurabh Srivastava, underscored that fundamental flaws in an FIR, such as the absence of specific dates and times, are irreparable during investigation and render the FIR legally defective.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an FIR lodged by Respondent No. 2 in Case Crime No. 0166 of 2018 at Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur. The allegations revolved around a right-of-way dispute, citing offenses under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 341 (wrongful restraint), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the Magistrate took cognizance of the case on October 1, 2018. The petitioner, Jagat Singh, challenged this cognizance in a criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Mirzapur. On July 20, 2022, the revisional court set aside the Magistrate’s order and remitted the matter for reconsideration.
Despite this directive, the Magistrate again took cognizance on December 1, 2023, leading the petitioner to file another challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution. This culminated in the present judgment.
Legal Issues
1. Specificity in FIR
The FIR failed to specify the exact date, time, and circumstances of the alleged incident. The petitioner argued that these omissions rendered the complaint vague and inadequate for initiating criminal proceedings.
2. Role of Magistrate Under Section 190 of Cr.P.C.
The Court scrutinized whether the Magistrate had properly considered all materials, including the FIR, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and the site plan, before taking cognizance.
3. Adherence to Revisional Orders
The revisional court had earlier directed the Magistrate to conduct a thorough review before taking cognizance, a mandate allegedly ignored in the subsequent proceedings.
4. Rectification of FIR Errors During Investigation
A pivotal issue was whether fundamental flaws in an FIR could be addressed during or after the investigation phase.
Observations by the Court
Justice Saurabh Srivastava made several significant observations, emphasizing procedural rigor and fairness:
1. On Specificity in FIR
– “The non-availability of specific dates and timing in the FIR cannot be rectified at the stage of investigation and is an error apparent on the face of the record.”
The Court emphasized that an FIR lacking essential details compromises the integrity of subsequent proceedings.
2. On Magistrate’s Role Under Section 190 Cr.P.C.
– “The Magistrate is required to consider the entire case diary, including the FIR, witness statements, and other evidence, rather than solely relying on the charge sheet when taking cognizance.”
The Court criticized the mechanical approach adopted by the Magistrate.
3. On Repeated Procedural Errors
– “It is highly shocking for the Court that once again, cognizance has been taken without addressing the critical issue of non-availability of specific dates and times in the FIR.”
The judgment highlighted repeated lapses despite clear directions from the revisional court.
4. On Curability of FIR Defects
– “An error which is apparent on the face of record in shape of non-availability of specific dates and timing over the FIR cannot be rectified at the stage of investigation.”
The Court ruled that such defects strike at the root of the proceedings, making them unsustainable.
The High Court quashed the cognizance order dated December 1, 2023, along with the entire proceedings in Case Crime No. 0166 of 2018. It also set aside the order of the revisional court affirming the cognizance. However, the Court clarified that the complainant (Respondent No. 2) retains the liberty to file a fresh complaint, provided it includes specific details of the alleged incident.
Parties and Legal Representation
– Petitioner: Jagat Singh
Advocates: Dinesh Kumar Singh and Indresh Kumar Singh
– Respondents: State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Advocate: Government Advocate
