The Supreme court ruled that it is necessary for the Magistrate to have due regard to the initial report as well as the supplementary report under section 173 of CrPC.
On 3 February 2016, FIR 205 of 2016 was registered at police station Alappuzha North against the appellants for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1806. The first appellant was named as the second accused, the second appellant as the third accused and the third appellant as the first accused. On 26 September 2016, the Sub-Inspector of police at Alappuzha North police station submitted a report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 implicating the appellants in the commission of the alleged offences.
The first appellant moved the Superintendent of Police and the IGP complaining of the registration of a false case and sought a further investigation in the matter. On 21 February 2017, the Dy SP (Administration) Alappuzha submitted a report recording that there were serious flaws in the earlier investigation. On 6 December 2017, the DySP Crime Branch submitted a supplementary report before the court of the JFCM Court – I, Alappuzha recommending that the proceedings against the appellants be dropped on the ground that no offence had been established during the course of the further investigation.
The division bench of Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant noted that upon the submission of the supplementary report, the JFCM Court – I, Alappuzha by an order dismissed the protest petition submitted by the first respondent for non-prosecution.
The court said that the Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside the order of the Magistrate for the simple reason that after the supplementary report submitted by the investigating officer, the Magistrate was duty bound in terms of the dictum in paragraph 42 of the decision in Vinay Tyagi, as well as the subsequent three-Judge Bench decision in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya to consider both the original report and the supplementary report before determining the steps that have to be taken further in accordance with law.
The court ordered that the JFCM – I Alappuzha shall reexamine both the reports in terms of the decisions of the Court in Vinay Tyagi vs Irshad Ali alias Deepak and Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat and in terms of the observations contained in the present judgment. The Magistrate shall take a considered decision expeditiously within a period of one month.
Case title: Luckose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke and Ors. v/s Joseph Joseph and Ors.
Citation: Criminal Appeal No 256 of 2022