{"id":155566,"date":"1985-04-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1985-04-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2"},"modified":"2017-12-30T14:04:51","modified_gmt":"2017-12-30T08:34:51","slug":"bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2","title":{"rendered":"Bhagwat Singh vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr on 25 April, 1985"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bhagwat Singh vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr on 25 April, 1985<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 1285, \t\t  1985 SCR  (3) 942<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: P Bhagwati<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Bhagwati, P.N.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nBHAGWAT SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT25\/04\/1985\n\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nSEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)\nMADON, D.P.\n\nCITATION:\n 1985 AIR 1285\t\t  1985 SCR  (3) 942\n 1985 SCC  (2) 537\t  1985 SCALE  (1)1194\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1988 SC1729\t (5)\n\n\nACT:\n     Criminal Procedure\t Code 1973  ss.\t 154  and  173-First\nInformation Report  -The informant  is entitled\t to hearing,\nwhen on\t the basis  of police  report Magistrate  prefers to\ndrop  the   proceedings\t instead  of  taking  cognizance  of\noffence- Person\t injured or  relative of the person who died\nin the\tincident complained  of has no such right of hearing\nexcept a standing to appear before Magistrate the Magistrate\nof his own discretion can issue notice to them for hearing.\n     Administrative   Law-Natural    justice-Difficulty\t  in\ncompliance with-Can  not be a ground to deny the opportunity\nof hearing.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     In a  criminal case  where First  Information Report is\nlodged and  the police\tsubmits a report after completion of\ninvestigation initiated\t on the\t basis of  such FIR  that no\noffence appears\t to have  been committed,  on  the  question\nwhether in  cases of  this kind,  the first informant or any\nrelative of  the dec- eased or any other aggrieved person is\nentitled to  be heard  at the  time of\tconsideration of the\nReport by the Magistrate and whether the Magistrate is bound\nto issue notice to any such person, the Court,\n^\n     HELD: I  . When the report forwarded by the Officer-in-\ncharge of  a police  station to\t the  Magistrate  under\t sub\nsection (2) (i) of section 173 comes up for consideration by\nthe Magistrate,\t one of\t two different situations may arise.\nThe report may conclude that an offence appears to have been\ncommitted by  a particular  person or  persons and in such a\ncase, the  Magistrate may do one of three things: (1) he may\naccept the  report and\ttake cognizance\t of the\t offence and\nissue process  or (2)  he may  disagree with  the report and\ndrop  the   proceeding\tor   (3)  he   may  direct   further\ninvestigation under  sub-section  (3)  of  section  156\t and\nrequire the  police to make a further report. The report may\non the\tother hand state that, in the opinion of the police,\nno offence  appears to\thave been committed and where such a\nreport has  been made, the Magistrate again has an option to\nadopt one of three courses: (1) he may accept the report and\ndrop the  proceeding or\t (2) he may disagree with the report\nand taking  the view  that there  is sufficient\t ground\t for\nproceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue\nprocess or  (3) he  may direct\tfurther investigation  to be\nmade by\t the police  under sub-section\t(3) of\tsection 156.\nWhere, in either of these two situations, the\nMagistrate decides  to take cognizance of the offence and to\nissue process, the\n943\ninformant is  not prejudicially\t affected nor is the injured\nor in case of death, any relative of the deceased aggrieved,\nbecause cognizance of the offence is taken by the Magistrate\nand it\tis decided  by the  Magistrate that  the case  shall\nproceed. But  if the  Magistrate decides  that there  is  no\nsufficient ground  for\tproceeding  further  and  drops\t the\nproceedings  or\t  takes\t the   view  that  though  there  is\nsufficient ground for proceeding against others mentioned in\nthe First  Information Report, the informant would certainly\nbe prejudiced because the First Information Report lodged by\nhim would  have failed\tof its\tpurpose; wholly\t or in part.\nMoreover, when\tthe interest  of the informant in prompt and\neffective action being taken on the First Information Report\nlodged by  him\tis  clearly  recognised\t by  the  provisions\ncontained in  sub-section (2) of section 154, subsection (2)\nof section  157 and  sub-section (2) (ii) of section 173, it\nmust  be  presumed  that  the  informant  would\t equally  be\ninterested in seeing that the Magistrate takes cognizance of\nthe offence  and  issues  process,  because  that  would  be\nculmination of\tthe First  Information Report lodged by him.\nThe Court  is accordingly  of the  view that in a case where\nthe Magistrate\tto whom\t a report  is forwarded\t under\tsub-\nsection\t (2)   (i)  of\tsection\t 173  decides  not  to\ttake\ncognizance of  the offence  and to  drop the  proceedings or\ntakes the  view that  there  is\t no  sufficient\t ground\t for\nproceeding against  some of  the persons  mentioned  in\t the\nFirst Information Report, the Magistrate must give notice to\nthe informant  and provide him an opportunity of being heard\nat  the\t time  of  consideration  of  the  report,  and\t the\ndifficulty of  service of  notice on  the  informant  cannot\npossibly  provide   any\t justification\t for  depriving\t the\ninformant of the opportunity of being heard at the time when\nthe report  is considered  by the  Magistrate.[947G-H;\t948,\n949A-C]\n\t     2.\t This Court cannot spell out either from the\nprovisions of  the Code\t of Criminal procedure, 1973 or from\nthe principles\tof natural  justice, any  obligation on\t the\nMagistrate to  issue notice  to the  injured person  or to a\nrelative of  the  deceased  for\t providing  such  person  an\nopportunity to\tbe heard at the time of consideration of the\nreport, unless\tsuch person  is the informant who has lodged\nthe First Information Report. But even if such person ii not\nentitled to notice from the Magistrate, he can appear before\nthe Magistrate\tand make  his submissions when the report is\nconsidered by  the Magistrate  for the\tpurpose of  deciding\nwhat action he should take on the report. The injured person\nor any\trelative of  the deceased,  though not\tentitled  to\nnotice from  the Magistrate,  has locus to appear before the\nMagistrate at the time of consideration of the report, if he\notherwise comes\t to know  that the  report is  going  to  be\nconsidered by  the Magistrate  and if  he wants\t to make his\nsubmissions in regard to the report, the Magistrate is bound\nto hear him. [949E-G]\n     Observation:\n     Even though  the Magistrate is not bound to give notice\nof the\thearing fixed for consideration of the report to the\ninjured person\tor to  any relative of the deceased, he may,\nin the exercise of his discretion, if he so thinks fit, give\nsuch notice  to the  injured person  or\t to  any  particular\nrelative or  relatives of  the deceased,  but not  giving of\nsuch notice  will not  have any\t invalidating effect  on the\norder which may be made by the Magistrate on a consideration\nof the report.[949H. 950A]\n944\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:  Contempt Petition\tNo. 4998  of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1983<\/span><br \/>\n\t\t\t     IN<br \/>\n     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6607 Of 1981<br \/>\n     Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India<br \/>\n     Kapil  Sibal,   A.C.  and\t Ms.  Madhu  Singh  for\t the<br \/>\npetitioner<br \/>\n     S.C. Maheshwari,  G.D. Gupta  and R.N.  Poddar for\t the<br \/>\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     BHAGWATI,\tJ.   The  short\t question  that\t arises\t for<br \/>\nconsideration in  this writ  petition is  whether in  a case<br \/>\nwhere  First   Information  Report   is\t lodged\t  and  after<br \/>\ncompletion of  investigation initiated\ton the\tbasis of the<br \/>\nFirst Information  Report, the\tpolice submits a report that<br \/>\nno offence  appears to\thave been  committed, the Magistrate<br \/>\ncan accept  the\t report\t and  drop  the\t proceeding  without<br \/>\nissuing notice\tto the\tfirst informant or to the injured or<br \/>\nin case the incident has resulted in death, to the relatives<br \/>\nof the\tdeceased. It  is not  necessary to  state the  facts<br \/>\ngiving rise  to this  writ petition,  because so far as this<br \/>\nwrit petition  is concerned, we have already directed by our<br \/>\norder dated  28th November, 1983 that before any final order<br \/>\nis passed  on  the  report  of\tthe  Central  Bureau  of  1:<br \/>\nInvestigation by  the  Chief  Metropolitan  Magistrate,\t the<br \/>\npetitioner who\tis the\tfather of  the unfortunate  Gurinder<br \/>\nKaur should  be heard.\tGurinder Kaur  died as\ta result  of<br \/>\nburns received\tby her\tand allegedly  she was\tburnt by her<br \/>\nhusband and  his parents  on account  of failure  to satisfy<br \/>\ntheir demand  for dowry. The circumstances in which Gurinder<br \/>\nKaur met  with her  unnatural death were investigated by the<br \/>\nCentral Bureau\tof Investigation  and a\t report was filed by<br \/>\nthe Central  Bureau of\tInvestigation in  the court  of\t the<br \/>\nChief Metropolitan  Magistrate on  11th August, 1982 stating<br \/>\nthat in\t their opinion\tin respect of the unnatural death of<br \/>\nGurinder Kaur  no offence  appeared to\thave been committed.<br \/>\nThe petitioner\twas however not aware that such a report had<br \/>\nbeen submitted\tby the\tCentral Bureau\tof Investigation and<br \/>\nhe,  therefore,\t  brought  an\tapplication  for  initiating<br \/>\nproceedings for\t contempt  against  the\t Central  Bureau  of<br \/>\nInvestigation on  the ground  that  the\t Central  Bureau  of<br \/>\nInvestigation had  not\tcompleted  their  investigation\t and<br \/>\nsubmitted their\t report within\tthe period stipulated by the<br \/>\nCourt by  its earlier  order dated  6th May, 1983. lt was in<br \/>\nreply  to   this  application  for  initiation\tof  contempt<br \/>\nproceedings that<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">945<\/span><br \/>\nthe Central  Bureau of Investigation intimated that they had<br \/>\nalready\t  filed their  report in  the  Court  of  the  Chief<br \/>\nMetropolitan Magistrate\t on 11th August, 1982 and the report<br \/>\nwas  pending   consideration  by   the\tChief\tMetropolitan<br \/>\nMagistrate. When  this fact  was brought  to our  notice  we<br \/>\nimmediately  passed  an\t order\tdated  28th  November,\t1983<br \/>\ndirecting that\tthe petitione  !should be  heard before\t any<br \/>\nfinal order was passed on the report. There was no objection<br \/>\non the\tpart of the respondents to the making of this order,<br \/>\nbut since  the question\t whether in  cases of this kind, the<br \/>\nfirst informant or any relative of the deceased or any other<br \/>\naggrieved person  is entitled  to be  heard at\tthe time  of<br \/>\nconsideration of  the report  by the  Magistrate and whether<br \/>\nthe Magistrate\tis bound to issue notice to any such person,<br \/>\nis a question of general importance which is likely to arise<br \/>\nfrequently in criminal proceedings, we thought that it would<br \/>\nbe desirable to finally settle this question so as to afford<br \/>\nguidance to  the courts\t of magistrates all over the country<br \/>\nand we\taccordingly proceeded  to hear the arguments on both<br \/>\nsides in regard to this question.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is  necessary to  refer to  a few  provisions of the<br \/>\nCode of\t Criminal procedure,  1973 in  order to\t arrive at a<br \/>\nproper determination  of this  question. Chapter  XII of the<br \/>\nCode of\t Criminal Procedure,  1973 deals with information to<br \/>\nthe police  and their powers to investigate. Sub-section (1)<br \/>\nof Section  154 provides  that every information relating to<br \/>\nthe commission\tof a  congizable offence, if given orally to<br \/>\nan officer-in-charge  of a  police station, shall be reduced<br \/>\nin writing by him or under his direction and be read over to<br \/>\nthe informant  and every  such information, whether given in<br \/>\nwriting or reduced to writing, shall be signed by the person<br \/>\ngiving it  and sub-section (2) of that section requires that<br \/>\na copy\tof P such information shall be given forthwith, free<br \/>\nof cost, to the informant. Section 156 sub-section (1) vests<br \/>\nin the\tofficer-in-charge of  a police\tstation the power to<br \/>\ninvestigate any\t cognizable case  without  the\torder  of  a<br \/>\nmagistrate and\tsub-section (3)\t of that  section authorises<br \/>\nthe magistrate\tempowered under\t Section  190  to  order  an<br \/>\ninvestigation  as  mentioned  in  sub-section  (1)  of\tthat<br \/>\nsection. Section 157 sub-section (1) lays down that if, from<br \/>\ninformation received  or otherwise an officer in charge of a<br \/>\npolice station\thas reason  to suspect\tthe commission of an<br \/>\noffence\t which\t he  is\t  empowered  under  Section  156  to<br \/>\ninvestigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to<br \/>\na Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">946<\/span><br \/>\nupon a\tpolice report  and shall  proceed  to  the  spot  to<br \/>\ninvestigate the\t facts and circumstances of the case and, if<br \/>\nnecessary, to  take measures for the discovery and arrest of<br \/>\nthe offender.  But there are of the First Information Report<br \/>\nlodged by  him. No  sooner he  lodges the  First Information<br \/>\nReport, a  copy of  it has  to be  supplied to\thim, free of<br \/>\ncost, under sub-section (2) of Section 154. If, two provisos<br \/>\nto this\t sub-section. Proviso  (b) enacts that if it appears<br \/>\nto the\tofficer-in-charge of  a police station that there is<br \/>\nno sufficient  ground for  entering on\tan investigation, he<br \/>\nshall not  investigate the  case, but  in such\ta case, sub-<br \/>\nsection (2)  of Section\t 157 requires that the officer shall<br \/>\nforthwith notify  to the informant the fact that he will not<br \/>\ninvestigate the\t case or  cause it  to be investigated. What<br \/>\nthe officer  in charge of a police station is required to do<br \/>\non completion  of the  investigation is\t set out  in section\n<\/p>\n<p>173. Sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 provides that as soon<br \/>\nas investigation  is completed,\t the officer  in charge of a<br \/>\npolice station\tshall forward to the magistrate empowered to<br \/>\ntake cognizance\t of the offence on a police report, a report<br \/>\nin the\tform prescribed\t by the State Government setting out<br \/>\nvarious particulars including whether, in the opinion of the<br \/>\nofficer, as  offence appears  to have  been committed and if<br \/>\nso, by\twhom. Sub-section (2)(ii) of Section 173 states that<br \/>\nthe officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be<br \/>\nprescribed by  the State Government, the action taken by him<br \/>\nto the\tperson, if  any, by whom the information relating to<br \/>\nthe commission\tof the\toffence was first given. Section 190<br \/>\nsub-section (1)\t then proceeds to enact that any&#8217; magistrate<br \/>\nof the\tfirst class  and any  magistrate of the second class<br \/>\nspecially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2) may<br \/>\ntake  cognizance  of  any  offence:  (a)  upon\treceiving  a<br \/>\ncomplaint of facts which constitute such offence or (b) upon<br \/>\na police  report of  such  facts  or  (c)  upon\t information<br \/>\nreceived from  any person  other than  a police\t officer, or<br \/>\nupon  his   own\t knowledge,   that  such  offence  has\tbeen<br \/>\ncommitted. We  are concerned  in this  case only with clause\n<\/p>\n<p>(b), because  the question  we are examining here is whether<br \/>\nthe magistrate\tis  bound  to  issue  notice  to  the  first<br \/>\ninformant or  to the  injured or  to  any  relative  of\t the<br \/>\ndeceased when  he is considering the police report submitted<br \/>\nunder section 173 sub-section (2).\n<\/p>\n<p>     It will  be seen  from the\t provisions to which we have<br \/>\nreferred in  the preceding  paragraph that when an informant<br \/>\nlodges the  First Information  Report with  the\t officer-in-<br \/>\ncharge of a police<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">947<\/span><br \/>\nstation he  does not fade away with the lodging of the First<br \/>\nInformation Report.  He is  very much  concerned  with\twhat<br \/>\naction is   initiated by the officer in charge of the police<br \/>\nstation on  the basis of the First Information Report lodged<br \/>\nby him.\t On sooner he lodges the First Information Report, a<br \/>\ncopy of\t it has to be supplied him, free of cost, under sub-<br \/>\nsection (2)  of Section\t 154. if.  notwithstanding the First<br \/>\nInformation  Report,   the  officer-in-charge  of  a  police<br \/>\nstation decides not to investigate the case on the view that<br \/>\nthere  is   no\tsufficient   ground  for   entering  on\t  an<br \/>\ninvestigation, he  is  required\t under\tsub-section  (2)  of<br \/>\nSection 157  to notify\tto the informant the fact that he is<br \/>\nnot  going   to\t investigate  the  case\t because  it  to  be<br \/>\ninvestigated. Then  again, the officer in charge of a police<br \/>\nstation is obligated under sub-section(2)(ii) of Section 173<br \/>\nto communicate\tthe action taken by him to the informant and<br \/>\nthe report  forwarded by  him to  the magistrate  under sub-<br \/>\nsection (2)(i)\thas therefore  to be  supplied by him to the<br \/>\ninformant. The\tquestion immediately arises as to why action<br \/>\ntaken by  the officer  in charge  of a police station on the<br \/>\nFirst Information  Report is required to be communicated and<br \/>\nthe report  forwarded to  the Magistrate  under\t sub-section<br \/>\n(2)(i) of  Section  173\t required  to  be  supplied  to\t the<br \/>\ninformant. Obviously,  the reason  is that the informant who<br \/>\nsets the  machinery of\tinvestigation into  motion by filing<br \/>\nthe First Information Report must know what is the result of<br \/>\nthe investigation  initiated  on  the  basis  of  the  First<br \/>\nInformation  Report.   The  informant\thaving\t taken\t the<br \/>\ninitiative in  lodging the  First Information  Report with a<br \/>\nview to\t initiating investigation  by  the  police  for\t the<br \/>\npurpose\t of   ascertaining  whether  any  offence  has\tbeen<br \/>\ncommitted and,\tif so, by whom, is vitally interested in the<br \/>\nresult of  the investigation and hence the law requires that<br \/>\nthe action  taken  by  the  officer-in-charge  of  a  police<br \/>\nstation\t on   the  First   Information\tReport\t should\t  be<br \/>\ncommunicated to him and the report forwarded by such officer<br \/>\nto the\tMagistrate under  sub-section (2)(i)  of Section 173<br \/>\nshould also be supplied to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Now, when the report forwarded by the officer-in charge<br \/>\nof a  police station  to the  Magistrate  under\t sub-section<br \/>\n(2)(i) of  Section 173\tcomes up  for consideration  by\t the<br \/>\nMagistrate, one\t of two\t different situations may arise. The<br \/>\nreport may  conclude that  an offence  appears to  have been<br \/>\ncommitted by  a particular  person or  persons and in such a<br \/>\ncase, the  Magistrate may do one of three things: (1) he may<br \/>\naccept the  report and\ttake cognizance\t of the\t offence and<br \/>\nissue process or (2) he may disagree with the report and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">948<\/span><br \/>\ndrop  the   proceeding\tor   (3)  he   may  direct   further<br \/>\ninvestigation under  sub-section  (3)  of  Section  156\t and<br \/>\nrequire the  police to make a further report. The report may<br \/>\non the\tother hand state that, in the opinion of the police,<br \/>\nno offence apppears to have  been committed and where such a<br \/>\nreport has  been made, the Magistrate again has an option to<br \/>\nadopt one of three courses: (1) he may accept the report and<br \/>\ndrop the  proceeding or\t (2) he may disagree with the report<br \/>\nand taking  the view  that there  is sufficient\t ground\t for<br \/>\nproceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue<br \/>\nprocess or  (3) he  may direct\tfurther investigation  to be<br \/>\nmade by\t the police  under sub-section\t(3) of\tSection 156.<br \/>\nWhere, in  either of  these two\t situations, the  Magistrate<br \/>\ndecides to  take cognizance  of the  offence  and  to  issue<br \/>\nprocess, the  informant is not prejudicially affected nor is<br \/>\nthe injured  or in  case  of  death,  any  relative  of\t the<br \/>\ndeceased aggrieved,  because cognizance\t of the\t offence  is<br \/>\ntaken by  the Magistrate and it is decided by the Magistrate<br \/>\nthat the  case shall  proceed. But if the Magistrate decides<br \/>\nthat there  is no  sufficient ground  for proceeding further<br \/>\nand drops the proceeding or takes the view that though there<br \/>\nis sufficient  ground for  proceeding against some, there is<br \/>\nno sufficient ground for proceeding against others mentioned<br \/>\nin  the\t  First\t Information  Report,  the  informant  would<br \/>\ncertainly be prejudiced because the First Information Report<br \/>\nlodged by him would have failed of its purpose, wholly or in<br \/>\npart. Moreover, when the interest of the informant in prompt<br \/>\nand effective  action being  taken on  the First Information<br \/>\nReport\tlodged\t by  him  is  clearly\t recognised  by\t the<br \/>\nprovisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 154, sub-<br \/>\nsection (2)  of\t Section  157  and  sub-section\t (2)(ii)  of<br \/>\nSection 173,  it must  be presumed  that the informant would<br \/>\nequally be  interested in  seeing that\tthe Magistrate takes<br \/>\ncognizance of  the offence  and issues process, because that<br \/>\nwould be  culmination of the First Information Report lodged<br \/>\nby him.\t There can,  therefore, be  no doubt that when, on a<br \/>\nconsideration of the report made by the officer in charge of<br \/>\na police  station under\t sub-section (2)(i)  of Section 173,<br \/>\nthe Magistrate\tis not\tinclined to  take cognizance  of the<br \/>\noffence and  issue process,  the informant  must be given an<br \/>\nopportunity  of\t  being\t heard\tso  that  he  can  make\t his<br \/>\nsubmissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of<br \/>\nthe offence  and issue\tprocess. We  are accordingly  of the<br \/>\nview that in a case where the magistrate to whom a report is<br \/>\nforwarded under\t sub-section (2)(i)  of Section\t 173 decides<br \/>\nnot to\ttake cognizance\t of the\t offence  and  to  drop\t the<br \/>\nproceeding or takes the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">949<\/span><br \/>\nview that  there is  no\t sufficient  ground  for  proceeding<br \/>\nagainst\t some\t of  the  persons  mentioned  in  the  First<br \/>\nInformation Report,  the magistrate  must give notice to the<br \/>\ninformant and  provide him an opportunity to be heard at the<br \/>\ntime of\t consideration of the report. It was urged before us<br \/>\non behalf  of the  respondents that if in such a case notice<br \/>\nis required to be given to the informant, it might result in<br \/>\nunnecessary delay  on account of the difficulty of effecting<br \/>\nservice of  the notice on the informant. But we do not think<br \/>\nthis can  be regarded  as a valid objection against the view<br \/>\nwe are\ttaking, because\t in any case the action taken by the<br \/>\npolice\ton   the  First\t  Information  Report\thas  to\t  be<br \/>\ncommunicated to\t the informant\tand a copy of the report has<br \/>\nto be  supplied to  him under sub-section (2) (i) of Section<br \/>\n173 if that be so, we do not see any reason why it should be<br \/>\ndifficult to serve notice of the consideration of the report<br \/>\non the\tinformant. Moreover, in any event, the difficulty of<br \/>\nservice of  notice on  the informant connot possibly provide<br \/>\nany  justification   for  depriving  the  informant  of\t the<br \/>\nopportunity of\tbeing heard  at the  time when the report is<br \/>\nconsidered by the Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The position may however, be a little different when we<br \/>\nconsider the  question\twhether\t the  injured  person  or  a<br \/>\nrelative of  the deceased,  who is  not\t the  informant,  is<br \/>\nentitled  to   notice  when   the  report   comes   up\t for<br \/>\nconsideration by  the Magistrate. We connot spell out either<br \/>\nfrom the  provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973<br \/>\nor from the principles of natural justice, any obligation on<br \/>\nthe Magistrate to issue notice lo the injured person or to a<br \/>\nrelative of  the  deceased  for\t providing  such  person  an<br \/>\nopportunity to\tbe heard at the time of consideration of the<br \/>\nreport, unless\tsuch person  is the informant who has lodged<br \/>\nthe First Information Report. But even if such person is not<br \/>\nentitled to notice from the Magistrate, he can appear before<br \/>\nthe Magistrate\tand make  his submissions when the report is<br \/>\nconsidered by  the Magistrate  for the\tpurpose of  deciding<br \/>\nwhat action he should take on the report. The injured person<br \/>\nor any\trelative of  the deceased,  though not\tentitled  to<br \/>\nnotice from  the Magistrate,  has locus to appear before the<br \/>\nMagistrate at  that time  of consideration of the report, if<br \/>\nhe otherwise  comes to\tknow that  the report is going to be<br \/>\nconsidered by  the Magistrate  and if  he wants\t to make his<br \/>\nsubmissions in regard to the report, the Magistrate is bound<br \/>\nto hear\t him. We  may also  observe  that  even\t though\t the<br \/>\nMagistrate is  not bound to give notice of the hearing fixed<br \/>\nfor consideration of the report<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">950<\/span><br \/>\nto the injured person or to any relative of the deceased, he<br \/>\nmay, in the exercise of his discretion, if he so thinks fit,<br \/>\ngive such  notice to the injured person or to any particular<br \/>\nrelative of  or relatives  the deceased,  but not  giving of<br \/>\nsuch notice  will not  have any\t invalidating effect  on the<br \/>\norder which may be made by the Magistrate on a consideration<br \/>\nof the report.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This is  our view\tin regard  to the question which has<br \/>\narisen for  consideration before  us. Since  the question is<br \/>\none of\tgeneral importance,  we would  direct that copies of<br \/>\nthis judgment  shall be\t sent to  the High Courts in all the<br \/>\nStates so  that the  High Courts may in their turn circulate<br \/>\nthis  judgment\t amongst  the\tMagistrates   within   their<br \/>\nrespective jurisdictions.\n<\/p>\n<p>M.L.A.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">951<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Bhagwat Singh vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr on 25 April, 1985 Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 1285, 1985 SCR (3) 942 Author: P Bhagwati Bench: Bhagwati, P.N. PETITIONER: BHAGWAT SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT25\/04\/1985 BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J) MADON, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-155566","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bhagwat Singh vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr on 25 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhagwat Singh vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr on 25 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1985-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-30T08:34:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhagwat Singh vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr on 25 April, 1985\",\"datePublished\":\"1985-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-30T08:34:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2\"},\"wordCount\":2764,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2\",\"name\":\"Bhagwat Singh vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr on 25 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1985-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-30T08:34:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhagwat Singh vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr on 25 April, 1985\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bhagwat Singh vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr on 25 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhagwat Singh vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr on 25 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1985-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-30T08:34:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhagwat Singh vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr on 25 April, 1985","datePublished":"1985-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-30T08:34:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2"},"wordCount":2764,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2","name":"Bhagwat Singh vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr on 25 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1985-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-30T08:34:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwat-singh-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-anr-on-25-april-1985-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhagwat Singh vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr on 25 April, 1985"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155566","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=155566"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155566\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155566"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155566"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155566"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}