The Supreme Court of India, in a recent order dated March 17, 2025, clarified that while a Magistrate is empowered to summon individuals not named in the police charge-sheet, it must do so by applying its judicial mind—not by directing the police to include names in the charge-sheet. The Court observed that such directions blur the line between investigation and adjudication.
The bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed the order in Gopal Pradhan vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3649/2025, arising out of an order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in February 2025.
Background
The petitioner, Gopal Pradhan, a Patwari by designation, was aggrieved by a direction issued by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pithora (District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh) on April 13, 2018, in Criminal Case No. 454 of 2017. The Magistrate had ordered that Pradhan and a former Land Acquisition Officer, K.D. Vaishnav, be included as accused in the charge-sheet and directed that summons be issued to them.
This came despite the police having submitted a final report after investigation, which did not find sufficient grounds to proceed against Pradhan.
The petitioner’s counsel—Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava (AOR), along with Mr. Bajrang Agrawal and Ms. Unnati Vaibhav—argued that the Magistrate had no authority to direct the police to include a person as an accused in the charge-sheet, especially when the investigating agency had concluded otherwise.
Court’s Findings
While acknowledging that courts can take cognizance of offences even against those not named in the police report, the Supreme Court underlined the procedural requirement of doing so through a reasoned application of mind, not by altering the charge-sheet.
“There is no provision in law where the Court can direct the Police to file charge-sheet against a particular person,” the Bench noted.
The Court further explained:
“The Court has the power to differ from the Final Form submitted by the Police and take cognizance… In such circumstances, the Court is then required to issue summons instead of directing for inclusion of the name of the person in the charge-sheet.”
However, since the Magistrate did issue summons—and the effect of the order was to treat the petitioner as an accused—the Supreme Court refused to interfere, holding that the procedural misstep did not prejudice the legal outcome.
Final Order
The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, but the Supreme Court recorded a key clarification: courts may differ with the police report and summon additional accused, but they must not instruct the police to modify the charge-sheet.
The order effectively draws a line between judicial oversight and investigatory discretion, reaffirming the court’s role in ensuring due process while exercising its powers of cognizance.
