The Allahabad High Court has held that a Magistrate is not required to issue notice to the informant before taking cognizance of offences against only those individuals named in the police charge sheet, even if others named in the FIR have been exonerated. The ruling came in Smt. Suman Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another [Application u/s 482 No. 25836 of 2024], a significant judgment clarifying the procedural rights of informants under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Smt. Suman Prajapati, had lodged an FIR on August 23, 2023, at P.S. Dhoomanganj, Prayagraj, alleging physical and mental cruelty for dowry against six persons, including her husband, Tripurari Prajapati. The case was registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Upon investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet dated November 19, 2023, only against Tripurari Prajapati. A final report was submitted in favor of the other five accused. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Court No.16, Allahabad, took cognizance of the offence only against Tripurari on January 30, 2024, without notifying the informant or offering her a hearing.
Aggrieved by this, Suman Prajapati filed an application under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash the Magistrate’s order, arguing that it violated her right to be heard before the court could ignore her allegations against the other five individuals.
Arguments by the Applicant
Represented by advocates Mr. Yashpal Yadav and Mr. Lalji Yadav, the applicant contended that:
As per Section 173(2)(ii) CrPC, the Investigating Officer is duty-bound to inform the informant about the action taken, including whether a final report or charge sheet is filed.
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Bhagwat Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Anr. [AIR 1985 SC 1285], they argued that the Magistrate must give notice to the informant before deciding not to proceed against persons named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted.
Failure to provide such notice was against natural justice and deprived the informant of an opportunity to contest the exoneration of the remaining accused.
Opposition and State’s Stand
The State, represented by Additional Government Advocate Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava (for opposite party no. 2), opposed the petition. They argued that:
The charge sheet was rightly submitted against the person found guilty during investigation.
The informant still has remedies, including the right to file a protest petition or seek summoning of other accused during trial under Section 319 CrPC.
Mandatory notice at this stage would delay proceedings unnecessarily.
Court’s Observations and Findings
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, after an extensive review of statutory provisions and precedent, held that:
“No prejudice is caused to the informant when the Magistrate has only issued notice to the charge-sheeted persons… The right of the informant is not in any way affected if the Magistrate has taken cognizance only against charge-sheeted persons without issuing notice with respect to those who are named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted.”
The court examined the legal regime under Sections 154, 157, and 173 of the CrPC and noted that while the informant has a recognized interest in seeing proper action taken on her complaint, there is no automatic or mandatory requirement to issue notice to the informant unless the Magistrate intends to accept the final report against some of the accused.
Importantly, the court emphasized that if any stage arises during trial where sufficient evidence against the non-charge-sheeted accused surfaces, the court may summon them under Section 319 CrPC.
Key Quote from the Judgment
“Issuance of notice to the informant… would prolong the matter causing unnecessary delay, whereas ample opportunity is there for the informant to place evidence and materials on record during trial.”
The court distinguished Bhagwat Singh and other rulings to conclude that the principles of natural justice are satisfied as long as the informant has opportunities during trial to press her case.
Conclusion and Final Order
The High Court dismissed the application, upholding the Magistrate’s discretion and reasoning:
“No interference is called for in the present matter. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.”
The court also appreciated the research assistance provided by Ms. Shreya Shukla, Research Associate, whose contributions were acknowledged in the final order.
Case Details:
Case Title: Smt. Suman Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Application u/s 482 No. 25836 of 2024
Bench: Justice Manju Rani Chauhan
Applicant Counsel: Mr. Yashpal Yadav, Mr. Lalji Yadav
State Counsel: Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan (A.G.A.)
Opposite Party Counsel: Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava
