Friday, March 15, 2024

In contractual dispute between the parties, no criminal liability arises: Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, Patna High Court

Bangalore based KEONICS, Datacon Technologies Pvt. Ltd conducted entire work of data entry establishment of data center, but IEMS not operational till date: Department of Prohibition, Excise and Registration, Bihar

In  Dileep Kumar v. State of Bihar, the judgement of Patna High Court's Justice Bibek Chaudhuri held that "this Court is of the opinion that for the dispute between the parties, no criminal liability arises. Therefore, I have no other alternative but to quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioners in both the writ petitions." In effect, his March 2024 judgement endorses the interim order passed by Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad in September 2022.

The case was filed on July 13, 2022 for quashing of FIR dated June 2, 2022 registered under Sections 353, 420, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and all other consequential proceeding. The criminal writ was registered on August 3, 2022. The case arose out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2022, Thana- Sachivalaya, Patna.

There were six petitioners including Dileep Kavitha, Director Datacon Technologies Pvt Ltd, South Bangalore, Bengaluru, Karnatka, Raghavendra Narayan Kulkarni, Amresh Singh, Ex Project Incharge, Datacon Technologies Pvt Ltd, Patna, Pramit Kumar Keshari System Administrator/ Data Centre Expert, Datacon Technologies Pvt Ltd, Dhanbad, Jharkhand and Datacon Technologies Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Dileep Kumar. The five respondents were Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, Officer-In-charge, Sachivalaya Police Station, District Patna and Krishna Kumar, Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department, New Secretariat, Patna.

Bihar State Beverages Corporation Limited (BSBCL) and Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Limited (KEONICS) entered into a contract on January 16, 2017, by executing a Master Service Agreement (MSA) as Total Solution and Service Provider (TSSP) to implement the project of IEMS for the Department of Prohibition, Excise and Registration, Government of Bihar. KEONICS undertook the project of IEMS through its impanelled agency Datacon Technologies Private Limited. the sixth petitioner.  

The FIR alleges that he the KEONICS, the vendor has not completed the project by the prescribed time limit and the vendor of the Datacon Technologies Pvt. Ltd. failed to provide required infrastructure. There was some problem from very beginning of the project. The petitioner contended that the project could not be completed because of negligence on the part of the department. Despite issues raised by ‘KEONICS’ the department did not take remedial measures. It was pointed out that the agreement contains an arbitration clause. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the FIR reveals that the allegations are in the nature of a complaint with regard to deficiency in service which cannot give rise to a criminal proceeding. He submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department, Bihar misused his position as a government servant and influenced the officer in-charge of Sachiwalaya police station to register a criminal case against the petitioners. 

On September 29, 2022, the Court had passed an interim order wherein it observed that the allegations are at best in the nature of a complaint against deficiency in service or a breach of contract by the vendor, the sixth petitioner.  Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad's interim order reads: "this Court directs that till further order, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners."     

The petitioners submitted that the Department committed contractual breach in the form of Master Service Agreement, which nowhere prescribed for criminal liability against the other party. Moreover, IEMS is having detailed provision for dispute resolution which includes escalation, mediation and provision of arbitration clause as per Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which can be invoked in case the complainant Department has any grievances against the vendor i.e. KEONICS. The respondents submitted that on behalf of KEONICS, Datacon Technologies Private Limited conducted entire work of data entry establishment of data center, but they have not made IEMS operational till date. 

The petitioners' contended that the entire dispute cropped up on the question of non-payment of money which the Datacon Technologies Private Limited claimed for their work through KEONICS.

The final judgement dated March 15, 2024 reads: "BSBCL, KEONICS and Datacon Technologies Private Limited are directed to sit together to resolve their grievances within four weeks from the date of this order, so that IEMS may be made operation, subject to any technical glitches and the question regarding payment or non-payment of the costs for the project shall be determined directly between BSBCL and KEONICS."

Thursday, March 14, 2024

Has the case concerning murder of Judge Uttam Anand been solved?

On March 14, 2024, CBI informed the Jharkhand High Court that no significant information has been derived from the WhatsApp chats of two people convicted in the murder of Judge Uttam Anand in Dhanbad. 

Uttam Anand, an Additional District Judge, was knocked off by the auto-rickshaw near Randhir Verma Chowk, Dhanbad. The incident was captured on CCTV. He was killed while he was out for a morning walk on July 28, 2021. The incident happened at 5 am. Jharkhand High Court's division bench of Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Ananda Sen was heard a public interest litigation initiated suo moto after the murder. 

Justice N V Ramana, the then Chief Justice of India had spoken to the then Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court. The Court had started monitoring the investigation which was initially started by the Dhanbad police. When the the investigation did not yield quick results, the case was handed over to the CBI. The CBI picked up two persons -- Lakhan Verma and Rahul Verma, the driver and conductor of the auto-rickshaw that hit Judge Anand. The CBI had re-registered the case and filed the charge sheet in October 2021. CBI had registered a case on August 4, 2021 in the matter of the murder of Uttam Anand, Additional District Judge, Dhanbad on the request of Jharkhand Government and on further Notification from Government of India. 

Jharkhand High Court had directed the CBI to take over the probe into the death case of Dhanbad district judget. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad gave this direction after accepting the recommendation made by the Jharkhand Government in August 2021.

Prior to that a case was registered by State police on a complaint from wife of deceased vide FIR No.300/2021 dated July 28, 2021 at Police Station Dhanbad under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC against an unknown auto driver. Two persons were arrested by local police. Supreme Court of India had taken suo-motu cognizance in the matter. It had passed directions for regular monitoring of the case by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. After taking over the investigation of the said case, CBI constituted a Special Investigation Team. After thorough investigation, covering all the possible aspects, CBI filed a chargesheet on October 20, 2021 against these two accused before the Court at Dhanbad.  As many as 58 prosecution witnesses were examined.  The trial was completed in a record time of almost six months. The entire investigation and trial was completed within one year from the incident. The Trial Court had found both the accused guilty and convicted them on July 28, 2022.

The sessions court of Dhanbad had framed charges on February 2, 2022. Dhanbad's Additional District and Sessions Judge-8 convicted both of offences under sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) and under 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court pronounced the quantum of the sentence on August 6, 2022. A fine of Rs 30,000 was also imposed on both convicts.

The CBI had issued a statement when the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) sentenced Lakhan Kumar Verma and Rahul Kumar Verma on August 6, 2022. Both have to undergo Life Imprisonment for remainder of Natural Life without any remission  in a case related to murder of Uttam Anand, then Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad.
 

         

Trust of the school, not State under Article 12 of Indian Constitution: Patna High Court

In Dr. Nand Kumar Singh v. District Magistrate, Samastipur, Patna High Court's Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan dismissed the writ petition as maintainable on March 14, 2024. The Court concluded, "it is clear that there is a private dispute between the parties and present writ application has been filed by the
petitioner for the enforcement of his private right, which cannot be granted since the trust of the school does not come under the purview of the State within Article 12 of the Constitution of India". 

The law is well settled on this issue. The Court relied on the decisions of Supreme Court in Committee of the Management of DPS v. M.K. Gandhi (2015), Trigun Chandra Thakur v. State of Bihar (2019) and St. Mary’s Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhagav to arrive at the conclusion that the writ application is not maintainable.

Supreme Court upholds the order of Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh, Patna High Court

Upon hearing the criminal appeal of five petitioners, namely, Srikant padhayay, Shashikant Upadhayay, Srina Upadhayay, Ashutosh Kumar and Asim Priyanshu, Supreme Court's bench of  Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar concluded that "there is no ground for interfering with the order of the High Court rejecting the application for anticipatory bail rather not considering application on merits. Since their action is nothing short of defying the lawful orders of the Court and attempting to delay the proceedings, this appeal must fail. Consequently, it is dismissed." The case arose out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2020 Thana- Govindganj, East Champaran.

The 33 page long judgement authored by Justice Ravikumar was delivered on March 14 , 2024. The Court relied on Court's decisions in Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022), State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (2014) and Lavesh v. NCT of Delhi (2012).

It all began with a pre-arrest bail application which was moved in connection with FIR No.79 of 2020, registered against him and co-accused at Govidganj, Police Station, District East Champaran, Bihar, under Sections 341, 323, 354, 354 (B), 379, 504, 506 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999. The Court refused to interfere with the order of Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court. In this case, FIR was registered pursuant to the directions of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari on complaint No.395 of 2020 filed by Ashutosh Kumar, Respondent No.4 under Section 156 (3), Cr. PC. 

The allegations in the complaint is as follows: On February 22, 2020, at about 8.00 am, when Jagmati Kunwar, the grandmother of respondent No.4 reached in front of the house of appellant No.2, Shashikant Upadhyay, he said that she is the witch who made his child sick and shall not be spared. Then, the appellants and eight other family members gathered around her and the 4th appellant caught hold of her hair and asked the others to bring dung. Thereupon, accused Paritosh Kumar brought dung and accused Rishu put dung into the mouth of Jagmati Kunwar. Consequently, she vomited and fell down. When respondent No.2/complainant and other witnesses went for her help, the second appellant Shashikant Upadhayay assaulted and abused respondent No.2. Co-accused Paritosh Kumar and Jishu Kumar tore the blouse of Kiran Devi and she was disrobed. Another co-accused Soni Devi snatched a gold chain from the complainant. The co-accused Ravikant and appellant No.5 tore the clothes of Jagmati Kunwar and made her half-naked.

In this backdrop, the five petitioners who apprehend arrest in registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379/354B and other sections of the IPC had filed a petition for pre-arrest bail in Patna High Court on November 22, 2022. It was registered on  December 1, 2022. 

Section 379 deals with "Punishment for theft". It reads: "Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." Section 354B deals with "Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe". It reads: "Any man who assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets such act with the intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of the High Court heard the matter and dismissed petition for pre-arrest bail of these five petitioners and dismissed it as not maintainable. 

The 2-page long High Court's order dated April 4, 2023 reads: "It is submitted on behalf of the State and the informant that petitioners have been declared absconder and processes of sections 82 and 83 have been initiated against them to ensure their appearance in the Court. Considering the aforesaid development, petition for pre-arrest bail of the petitioners is dismissed as not maintainable."

Wednesday, March 13, 2024

Order of Single Judge Bench of High Court restored, Order of Division Bench set aside: Supreme Court

"Transfer on the instance of MP/MLA always would not per se vitiate the order of transfer"

In Sri Pubi Lombi v. State of Aurnachal Pradesh (2024), the judgement of Supreme Court's bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol has set aside the judgment and order dated September 22, 2023 of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court and restored the judgement of the Single Judge bench dated July 11, 2023. The Single Judge bench had upheld the order of transfer dated April 20, 2023. It observed that transfer made on the basis of UO Note dated February 28, 2023 put up by the Member of the Legislative Assembly, 29-Basar (ST) Assembly Constituency (MLA) itself cannot be held to vitiate the transfer until there is an allegation of any malafide exercise of powers by the respondents-authorities in issuing the order. The Single Judge bench had dismissed the writ petition challenging the modified order of transfer in absence of any allegation of malafide.

The Division Bench of the High Court heard the writ appeal and had set aside the order of the Single Judge bench . It observed that the UO Note of the MLA was approved without application of mind with regard to administrative exigencies by department in public interest or in the service. 

The judgment of the Division Bench was questioned before the Supreme Court. It was contended that in the matter of transfer scope of judicial review is limited,. It can be reviewed only when transfer is in violation of the statutory provisions or due to malafide reasons. It is not open to the Court to interfere with the orders of transfer on a post which is transferrable, in absence of any malafide alleged or infraction of any professed norms if such transfer is not detrimental. The State supported the contention of the appellant. It submitted that the Division Bench has committed an error in setting aside the well-reasoned judgment of Single Judge.

The judgement authored by Justice Maheshwari was delivered on March 13, 2024.

Note: The judgment dated 22.09.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 266/2023 which reversed the judgment of the Single Judge dated 11.07.2023 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 199 (AP) 2023 do not appear to be on the website of Gauhati High Court. Supreme Court's website refers to Justices Soumitra Saikia and Arun Deve Choudhury for verdict dated 22-09-2023 in WA-266-2023. It refers to Justices Soumitra Saikia and Arun Deve Choudhury "although its a Single Judge bench" for the verdict dated 11-07-2023 in WPC-199(AP)-2023. These errors need to be rectified.

Patna High Court sets aside illegal order of Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Ballia, Begusarai

Setting aside the order of Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Ballia, Begusarai, Patna High Court observed that "The impugned order is not only bad in law, but perverse and passed without following the procedure and power of the Executive Magistrate under Chapter-X of the Cr.P.C." Rameshwar Prasad Singh, S/o Late Nathuni Singh, the petitioner from Manserpur, Ballia, Begusarai, had challenged an order dated June 8, 2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ballia, Begusarai, in Dispute Case No. 01 of 2016-17, registered on the basis of a plain official letter, written by Sadanand Singh, respondent no. 7 to the Executive Magistrate. The case was filed on July 18, 2018.

It has been noted by the Court that by passing the impugned order on June 8, 2017, the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Ballia, Begusarai, passed an order restraining the opposite parties from making any obstruction to the petitioner (respondent no. 7 in High Court) from carrying on repairing as well as renovation work of his hut, situated on khesra no.-519, over a land measuring about 2 dhurs.

In its order, the Court recorded that "no proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. or Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated by the Sub-divisional Magistrate while passing the impugned order in the nature of injunction. By such order, it is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is prevented from his enjoyment over the subject land." Section 144 (7) states that where an application under Section 144 (5) or 144 (6) is received, the Magistrate, or the State Government, as the case may be, shall afford to the applicant an early opportunity of appearing before him or it, either in person or by pleader and showing cause against the order; and if the Magistrate or the State Government, as the case may be, rejects the application wholly or in part, he or it shall record in writing the reasons for so doing.

The Advocate for the petitioner submitted that prior to making such application before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, the respondent no. 7 himself filed a suit for declaration of his title and other consequential relief before the 1st court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Begusarai, which was registered as Title Suit No. 5 of 2016, dated January 2, 2016. In this suit the respondent no. 7 being the plaintiff did not file any application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from making any obstruction against the repairing work of his hut. The Court recorded that "On the contrary, suppressing the this fact, the respondent no. 7 obtained a most illegal order from the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Ballia, Begusarai." The judgement was authored by Justice Bibek Chaudhuri.


Tuesday, March 12, 2024

Registrar Generals of High Courts, Chief Secretaries and Police stations must ensure strict compliance with Section 173 of Cr.P.C: Supreme Court

On March 12, 2024, in Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand (2024), Supreme Court's bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal reiterated Court's order dated July 17, 2023, whereby DGPs for the States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh were directed to submit their respective reports on the steps taken by them to ensure that chargesheets are being filed in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), 1973. This order was passed by Court's bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Trivedi.

The March 2024 order authored by Justice Trivedi records that in compliance with the earlier order, the affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar with regard to the steps taken/being taken by them for submitting the Chargesheets/Police Reports in accordance with law. In conclusion, the Court's order reads: "It is further directed that the officer in charge of the police stations in every State shall strictly comply with the afore-stated directions, and the non-compliance thereof shall be strictly viewed by the concerned courts in which the Police Reports are submitted. Copy of this order be sent to all the Chief Secretaries of the States/UTs as also to Registrar Generals of the High Courts for perusal and compliance."

The Court observed, "The Police Report submitted by the police under Section 173(2) being very important piece of document from the view point of the prosecution, the defence and the court, we deem it necessary to elaborately deal with the various aspects involved in the said provision. For the reasons stated hereinafter, we are of the opinion that it is incumbent on the part of the Investigating Officer to strictly comply with the requirements of the said provisions, as non-compliance thereof gives rise to many legal issues in the court of law." Section 173 deals with the report of police officer on completion of investigation. Section 173 (2) deals with required post investigation steps, the required eight details in the prescribed format of the police report which is supposed to be forwarded to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence, and communication by the police officer regarding action taken by him to the person by whom the information relating to the commission of offence was first given. As per Section 2(r) of Cr.P.C, “Police Report” means a report forwarded by a Police Officer to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 173.

Section 173 reads: “173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation. —(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. [(1A) The investigation in relation to [an offence under sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB or 376E] from the date on which the information was recorded by the officer in charge of the police station.] (2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating—

(a) the names of the parties;
(b) the nature of the information;
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;
(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.
(h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under [ sections 376,376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)].]
(ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.
(3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under section 158, the report shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation.
(4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit.
(5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report—
(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation;
(b) the statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.
(6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.
(7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5).
(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)”.
10. The procedure for investigation has been laid down in Section 157 of Cr.P.C. which states inter alia that if from the information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. Such report would be in the nature of preliminary report. As per Section 169, upon the completion of the investigation, if it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, as such officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, and to try the accused or commit him for trial. Section 170 deals with the cases to be sent to Magistrate when evidence is sufficient. The relevant part of Section 170(1) reads as under: -“170. Cases to be sent to Magistrate, when evidence is
sufficient.—(1) If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial, or, if the offence is bailable and the accused is able to give security, shall take security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate until otherwise directed.” 

Section 172 pertains to the Diary of proceedings in investigation, which requires every police officer making an investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. to enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary day by day. Sub-section (IA) of Section 172 requires that the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation under section 161 have to be inserted in the case diary; and sub-section (1B) of Section 172 requires that such diary shall be a volume and duly paginated. 

The Court observed that "though there are various reports required to be submitted by the police in charge of the police station before, during and after the investigation as contemplated in Chapter XII of Cr.P.C., it is only the report forwarded by the police officer to the Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. that can form the basis for the competent court for taking cognizance thereupon. A chargesheet is nothing but a final report of the police officer under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. It is an opinion or intimation of the investigating officer to the concerned court that on the material collected during the course of investigation, an offence appears to have been committed by the particular person or persons, or that no offence appears to have been committed.

It further observes, "When such a Police Report concludes that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person or persons, the Magistrate has three options: 

(i) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process, 

(ii) he may direct further investigation under sub-section (3) of Section 156 and require the police to make a further report, or 

(iii) he may disagree with the report and discharge the accused or drop the proceedings. 

If such Police Report concludes that no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate again has three options: 

(i) he may accept the report and drop the proceedings, or (ii) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or 

(iii) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under sub-section (3) of Section 156.

The Court referred to Satya Narain Musadi v. State of Bihar (1980), wherein, the Court observed that statutory requirement of the report under Section 173(2) would be complied with if various details prescribed therein are included in the report. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175(5). But in Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI (2007), it has been held that even if all the documents are not filed, by reason thereof the submission of the chargesheet itself would not be vitiated in law. It also cited Court's recent opinion in CBI v. Kapil Wadhwan (2024), wherein the Court observed "Once from the material produced along with the chargesheet, the court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of the further investigation qua the other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate the chargesheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete chargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C."

It emerges from the cited judgements of the Supreme Court that non-compliance with Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C does not vitiate the chargesheet. But Justice Trivedi infers the contrary. She says, "The above referred discussion has been necessitated for highlighting the significance of the compliance of requirements of the provisions contained in Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C."

Significantly, her order directs that "the Report of police officer on the completion of investigation shall contain the following: -
(i) A report in the form prescribed by the State Government stating-
(a) the names of the parties;
(b) the nature of the information;
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;
(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.
(h) Whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under [sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)”
(ii) If upon the completion of investigation, there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, the Police officer in charge shall clearly state in the Report about the compliance of Section 169 Cr.PC.
(iii) When the report in respect of a case to which Section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report, all the documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation; and the statements recorded under Section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.
(iv) In case of further investigation, the Police officer in charge shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed and shall also comply with the details mentioned in the above sub para (i) to (iii).

Justice Trivedi has reversed the judgements in Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI (2007) and CBI v. Kapil Wadhwan (2024) in this regard. It is apparent from the judgement that strict compliance with Section 173 of Cr.P.C has been made mandatory.