“Therefore, the investigating officer must make clear and complete entries of all columns in the chargesheet so that the court can clearly understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on the file. Statements under Section 161 of the Code and related documents have to be enclosed with the list of witnesses. The role played by the accused in the crime should be separately and clearly mentioned in the chargesheet, for each of the accused persons.”, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti said.

Deprecating the practice of filing chargesheet without stating sufficient details of the facts constituting the offence or putting the relevant evidence on record, the court noted that “in some states, the charge sheets merely carry a reproduction of the details mentioned by the complainant in the First Information Report, and then proceed to state whether an offence is made out, or not made out, without any elucidation on the evidence and material relied upon.”

Opining that the charge sheet need not elaborately evaluate the evidence, as the process of evaluation is a matter of trial, however, the court advocated the inclusion of the substantiated reasons and grounds for an offence being made in the chargesheet which would act as a resource for the magistrate to evaluate whether there are sufficient grounds for taking cognizance, initiating proceedings, and then issuing notice, framing charges, etc.

“It is the police report which would enable the Magistrate to decide a course of action from the options available to him. The details of the offence and investigation are not supposed to be a comprehensive thesis of the prosecution case, but at the same time, must reflect a thorough investigation into the alleged offence. It is on the basis of this record that the court can take effective cognisance of the offence and proceed to issue process in terms of Section 190(1)(b) and Section 204 of the Code. In case of doubt or debate, or if no offence is made out, it is open to the Magistrate to exercise other options which are available to him.”, the Judgment authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said.

The court referred to the Judgment of H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi, where it was held that the process of investigation generally consists of:

“1) proceeding to the concerned spot,

2) ascertainment of facts and circumstances,

3) discovery and arrest,

4)collection of evidence which includes examination of various persons, search of places and seizure of things, and

5) formation of an opinion on whether an offence is made out, and filing the chargesheet accordingly.”

Reliance was also placed on the recent Judgment of Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand, where the court observed that police officers submitting the police report/chargesheet to the magistrate as per the State Police Manual shall abide by the particulars of Section 173 (2) and directed the officers in charge of every police station across the country to strictly comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. failing which it shall be strictly viewed by the concerned courts i.e., where the chargesheet/police report is filed.

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR Mr. Mohd Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jamil Husain, Adv. Mr. Mushtaque Ahmad Khan, Adv. Mr. Tabrez Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Aamir Dabas, Adv. Mr. Rauf Rahim, AOR Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Kalra, AOR Mr. Saad Sharif, Adv. Mr. Pravir Singh, Adv. Mr. Anurag Malik, Adv. Mr. S.N. Kalra, Adv. Counsel For Respondent(s) Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, A.A.G. for State of U.P. Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR Mr. Arun Pratap Singh Rajawat, Adv. Mr. Ashish Madaan, Adv. Ms. Ananya Sahu, Adv. Ms. Saumya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ardhendhumauli Kumar Prasad, A.A.G. Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR for State of U.P. Ms. Shubhali Pathak, Adv. Mr. Ashish Madaan, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv. Ms. Ananya Sahu, Adv. Mr. Aman Pathak, Adv. Mr. Dushyant Parashar, AOR Mr. Dinesh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Manu Parashar, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, AOR Mr. Gaurav Verma, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Dutt Gaur, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Singh,

Case Title: Sharif Ahmed and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh, VAKIL AHMAD & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME & ANR.

“While there are no comprehensive set of guidelines for the issuance of nonbailable warrants, this Court has observed on several occasions that nonbailable warrants should not be issued, unless the accused is charged with a heinous crime, and is likely to evade the process of law or tamper/destroy evidence.”, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti said.

The non-bailable warrant was issued against the accused/appellant by the trial court after the accused didn’t show his appearance before the court despite the issuance of a bailable warrant.

The chargesheet was filed against the appellant containing offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 120B, 308, and 325 of the IPC.

Reversing the findings of the High Court, the Judgment authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed that the nonbailable warrants issued against the appellant were unsustainable and should be quashed.

“It is a settled position of law that non-bailable warrants cannot be issued in a routine manner and that the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed unless necessitated by the larger interest of the public and the State.”, the court said.

Also From the Judgment: Chargesheet Must Contain Clear & Complete Entries, Specify Role Of Each Accused; Witness Statements Be Enclosed With It : Supreme Court

Case Title: Sharif Ahmed and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh, VAKIL AHMAD & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME & ANR.

The judge delivered a lecture on “A Judge Criticizing his own judgment in the Matter of Suit for Land”. The judge discussed how he had made a mistake while delivering judgment in a 2018 case, in the matter of Harsha Estates v Kalyana Chakravarty.

The judge remarked that he, as an individual was criticising the judgment delivered by him as a judge. He added that this attitude was very important since evolution happens when a person knows he has committed a mistake and is willing to correct that mistake. He added that everyone was bound to commit a mistake but it was also important to have a willingness to identify and reconsider the mistake.

“N Anand Venkatesh is criticizing the judgment of Justice N Anand Venkatesh. He is saying that the judgment may not be right and that the judgment needs reconsideration. This attitude is very important because at the end of the day, evolution happens not by merely learning but by unlearning also. Evolution happens when you know that you have committed a mistake and you’re willing to correct that mistake. An institution is involved here. There is nothing personal in this. Everyone is bound to commit a mistake. And once you know you have committed a mistake, it’s very important that you recognize the fact that you have committed a mistake and try to change it,” the judge said.

Justice Venkatesh added that one should not try to justify a mistake or try to keep it under the rags but should instead be willing to come forward and admit the mistake. 

“If you have committed a mistake and say that I have committed a mistake and it needs to be reconsidered, people will appreciate you rather than look down upon you,” he said.

Justice Venkatesh said that he had delivered the judgment shortly after assuming office and was carried away by the over-enthusiasm to write judgments. He added that if he had not let the over-enthusiasm come in the way and had deeply considered all the connected issues, he might have been able to deliver a better judgment.

He said that in the case, he had laid down a wrong proposition of law which led to a confusing proposition of law today. He added that the proposition as it existed today was that a suit for specific performance simpliciter was considered a suit for land, a suit for specific performance where possession was sought but the person in possession was pendente lite purchaser was considered a suit for land, and a suit for specific performance with an ancillary prayer of permanent injunction is sought was also considered a suit for land.

The judge clarified that a suit for specific performance was an action in personam and the decree was addressed to the defendant. He added that a leave under Clause 12 of the Letter Patent Act could be granted in cases where the property was situated outside the jurisdiction provided the defendant was within the original limits of the high court.

He further clarified that a suit for specific performance involving an agreement requiring the vendor to handover possession to the purchaser does not alter the nature of the suit from that of specific performance to that of title. He added that when an ancillary prayer for possession was made or an injunction was sought, it would not alter the character of the suit. He said that the primary test of the nature of the suit must be seen and not the relief.