Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court by explaining the difference between the inquiry under section 154 Cr.P.C. and the inquiry as contemplated under section 174 Cr.P.C, held as under:

"On a careful scrutiny of materials on record, the inquiry which was conducted for the purpose of ascertaining whether the death is natural or unnatural cannot be categorized under information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence within the meaning and import of 154 CrPC. On information received by P.S. Mulana, the police made an inquiry as contemplated under 174 CrPC. After holding an inquiry, the police submitted its report before the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambala stating therein that it was a case of hanging and no cognizable offence is found to have been committed. In the report, it was also mentioned that the father of the deceased-R.P. Sharma (PW-1) does not want to take any further action in the matter. In view of the above discussion, it clearly goes to show that what was undertaken by the police was an inquiry under 174 CrPC which was limited to the extent of natural or unnatural death and the case was closed. Whereas, the condition precedent for recording of FIR is that there must be an information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence and in the case on hand, it leaves no matter of doubt that the intimation was an information of the nature contemplated under 174 CrPC of the Code and it could not be categorized as information disclosing a cognizable offence. Also, there is no material to show that the police after conducting investigation submitted a report under 173 CrPC as contemplated, before NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined the competent authority, which accepted the said report and closed the case."

13.3 Therefore, held that the investigation under section 174 Cr.P.C. is distinct from the investigation as contemplated under Section 154 Cr.P.C. relating to commission of the cognizable offence and answered the issue raised accordingly:

"In view of the above, the investigation on an inquiry under under Section 174 CrPC is distinct from the investigation as contemplated under Section 154 CrPC relating to commission of a cognizable offence and in the case on hand there was no FIR registered at the time of incident, neither any investigation nor any report Section 173 CrPC was submitted. Therefore, challenge to impugned FIR registered afterwards, could not be assailed on the ground that it was second FIR in the garb of which investigation or fresh investigation of the same incident was initiated."

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 17.5 P.W7 was not shown his complaint in spite of stating that he had given a 'Janvajog' complaint before the police, wherein he had put his signature. Exh.100 is dated 06.10.2003, it does not note the time, however, the time could be gathered from document Exh.80, where the Accidental Death Report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the time of recording the information is shown as 06.10.2003 at 1.30 hours, while the time of incident is noted as 05.10.03 at 23.00 hours. The note below Exh.80 expresses that it was forwarded to Police Station Officer, Deodar after registering the complaint at 1.30 along with the papers with the requisition to accept the same. Exh.80 does not disclose of suicide note being forwarded in the documents. The suicide note (Exh.26) was recovered through the panchnama of place of incident (Exh.77) on 06.10.2003 between 9.30 to 11.00 hours. Since there is no document on record of Exh.26 forwarded to P.S.O., it could be inferred that the said document Exh.26, as a suicide note lied with the Dy. S.P. Deodar (PW15). 17.6 Though suicide note was recovered between 9.30 to 11.00 hours on 06.10.2003, no FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. was filed for the cognizable offence. For the investigation towards Exh.80 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. no final report was filed.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined Section 175 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Police Officers proceedings under Section 174 in connection to the inquiry summon any person for the purpose of said investigation and any other person, who appears to be acquainted with the facts of the case and every person so summon shall be bound to attain and answer thoroughly all questions other than questions, the answers to which have a tendency to expose him to criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture. Sub-section (2) of Section 175 clarifies that if the facts do not disclose a cognizable offence, to which Section 170 applies, such person shall not be required by the police officer to attain a Magistrate's Court. 17.7 PW13 had recorded the report at Exh.80 of Accidental Death under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and PW16 - Maheshkumar Babulal Naik, was handed over the Accidental Death Report No.8/2003 for investigation, he does not clarify about filing any report in connection with the inquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on summoning any person in that regard. PW16 does not state of the panchnama drawn by Dy. S.P. (PW15). He refers to 'Muddamal Pawati' forwarded to Executive Magistrate, Deodar and refers to the panchnama (Exh.74), which is about three pieces of the polyester sari seized by him on 06.10.2003 between NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 16.30 to 16.50, but there is no mention of Exh.77 drawn on 06.10.2003 between 9.30 to 11.00 hours.