Last Updated :
Procedure under Cr.P.C to be Followed After Completion of Investigation | Overview
- Investigation Resulting in No Evidence
- Submission of Closure Report
- Cognizance by the Court
- Object to Taking Cognizance
The present article is a study of the procedure under the Criminal Procedure Code to be followed after completion of the investigation. Criminal Law is set to motion with the registration of an FIR before the police after which the police initiates the procedure of investigation.
Article 21 of the Constitution ensures the fundamental right to life and individual freedom. This article of the Constitution has been deciphered by the Judiciary with vastest brevity and sincerity in order to incorporate a few different rights, for example, right to food and shelter, and different rights and in particular the privilege to fair and reasonable trial which incorporates the privilege to reasonable examination as well.
In Anbaizhagan’s case, the apex court saw that if the criminal trial isn’t fair, reasonable and not free from inclination, the legal decency and the criminal equity framework would be in question, shaking the certainty of the society in the judicial system and burden would be the standard of law.
Trial ought to be reasonable for all concerned and ‘disavowal of the reasonable trial is as a lot of treachery to the charged as is to the person affected, i.e. the victim and the general public’.
Investigation Resulting in No Evidence
The privilege to reasonable trial incorporates ‘Reasonable Investigation’. Fair trial and reasonable investigation are pre-requisites to get equity which the society demands according to law, and one without the other cannot provide reasonable equity.
Any situation that relates to any commission of the offence is subjected to reasonable investigation and subsequently, trial and for that purpose, if required, the case can be endowed to special investigating organizations such as the Crime Investigation Department or the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The examining specialists have been enabled to present a report to the judge that there is no proof or sensible grounds or doubt to legitimize the sending of the denounced to the Magistrate and to discharge the blamed from the authority on his executing a security with or without surety, as the cop direct, to show up, if and when so required, before a Magistrate engaged to take insight of the offence on a police report and to attempt the charged or submit for trial.
The 41st report of the Indian Law Commission prescribed that a charged individual must get a reasonable trial as per the standards of regular equity, endeavours must be made to stay away from delay in examination and trial and the methodology should target guaranteeing reasonable arrangement to the more unfortunate areas of the general public.
Submission of Closure Report
The report under Sec 169 CrPC is alluded to as a ‘closure report’. The Magistrate, be that as it may, can guide the police to make a further examination. The extent of the ability to coordinate further examination when the police report expresses that there is no proof to continue further, and truly there is no proof for the situation by any stretch of the imagination, regardless of whether it would be a request which can be legitimized or held substantial needs assessment.
For a situation where the Director-General of Anti-Corruption Bureau gave a request and a report under Sec 169 Cr Pc and it was a ‘speaking order’ containing reasons that there is definitely no proof to indict the denounced, the bearing has given by the Magistrate when the case itself doesn’t contain any proof to continue further, the course of the court must be seen as awful in law.
This view discovers bolster when there is a finding by Lokayukta that there is no material against the denounced. As the peak court decided that a reference is made to the examining official or the courts to Section 169 Cr Pc, the equivalent must be perused as a kind of perspective to Sec 173 CrPC.
Cognizance by the Court
The intensity of the court to take cognizance of a case, it is to inspect whether there is adequate ground for taking judicial notice of the offence so as to start further procedures. The Supreme Court inspected this issue in Chief Enforcement Officer’s case and expressed that the articulation ‘cognizance’ has not been explained or defined in the code.
However, the word ‘cognizance’ is of uncertain import. It has no exclusive or spiritualist hugeness in criminal law. It just signifies ‘become mindful of’ and when utilized concerning a court or a Judge, it implies ‘to pay heed to judicially’. It demonstrates the moment that a court or a Magistrate takes legal notice of an offence with the end goal of starting procedures in regard of such offences said to have been submitted by somebody.
It was additionally clarified in this way:
- Taking awareness doesn’t include any proper activity of any sort;
- It happens when the Magistrate applies his brain to the associated commission with an offence;
- It is preceding the initiation of criminal procedures;
- It is an imperative essential for holding a substantial trial;
- Cognizance is taken of an offence and not a wrongdoer;
- Whether the Magistrate has taken comprehension of an offence or not relies upon the realities and conditions of each case, as no widespread application rule can be set down;
- Under Sec 190 of CrPC, it is the use of the Judicial personality to the averments in the protests that establishes ‘insight’;
- The Magistrate needs to think about whether there is adequate ground for continuing further and not an adequate ground for conviction, as the adequate ground for a conviction can be viewed as just at the trial;
- If there is adequate ground for procedures, at that point the Magistrate can give the procedure under Sec 204 CrPC. The Magistrate has the undoubted carefulness, to be judicially practised in deciding if there is a prima-facie case to take discernment;
- Despite a report of the police that no case is made out, the Magistrate can dismiss the report and take comprehension and arrange further examination under Sec 173 (8) CrPC.
Object to Taking Cognizance
The primary purpose of objective for taking cognizance by a court is to begin procedures against the charged. At this phase of awareness, the court is worried about the inclusion of the individual and not of his guiltlessness. When there is no material to continue, there is no reason for taking perception and continuing further. The indictment becomes useless exercise when the materials accessible don’t show an offence is submitted. In such circumstances, the apex court observed thus:
- Calling of a charged in a criminal case is a genuine issue. Criminal law can’t be gotten underway as is normally done;
- The procedure of criminal court will not be allowed to be utilized as a weapon of badgering. When it is discovered that there is no material on record to interface a denounced with the wrongdoing, there is no importance in indicting him. It would be a sheer misuse of open time and cash to allow such procedures to proceed against such an individual;
- Baseless and undeserved arraignment is an encroachment of the assurance under Art 21 of the Constitution; and
- No court can give a positive heading to a power to give endorse for arraignment, when there is a police report that no case is made out to indict, except if the court finds generally. Criminal law ought not to be utilized for vexatious arraignment. On the off chance that where assent is required to arraign, for example, for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and so on.
In this way, the reasonable examination necessitates that the police ought to completely look at the whole proof to see if any prima-facie case is made out against the denounced. In the event that no case is made out, there ought to be a closure report under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code which will be viewed as a final report submitted under Sec 173 CrPC.
It is again the obligation of the Magistrate to see if there is any material on record to continue against the blamed. On the off chance that there is no material to continue further, there is no reason for taking perception. As such, the reasonable examination and trials need the assurance of a blamed from undesirable and vexatious arraignments to maintain a strategic distance from provocation to people concerned.
 AIR 2004 SC 524.
 Best Bakery Case, AIR 2004 SC 3114.
 Kalyani Baskar v. M. S. Sampoornam, (2007)2 SCC P.259.
 Nirmal Singh Kahlon’s case, AIR 2006 SC 1367.
 Sanjay Sinh Ram Rao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulab Rao Phalke (2015)3 SCC 126.
 (2008) 3 SCC 492.
 Pepsi Foods Ltd., v. Judicial Magistrate (1998)3 SCC 749.