Case Background
The case arises from Nagar P.S. Case No. 557 of 2012, Nawada, registered on 18.10.2012. The FIR was lodged by the petitioner, a proprietor of a tractor dealership in Nawada town.
According to the FIR, serious offences were alleged, including rioting, attempt to murder, mischief by fire, destruction of motorcycles and tractors, use of firearms, and theft of mobile phones. A total of twenty accused persons were named in the FIR, including opposite party (O.P.) nos. 2 to 11.
During investigation, ten accused persons named in the FIR were apprehended at the spot. The police submitted a chargesheet against those apprehended accused but chose not to “send up” O.P. nos. 2 to 11 for trial, effectively exonerating them in the final report.
Feeling aggrieved by non-action against the named accused, the informant (petitioner) filed a protest petition on 09.11.2012 during the course of investigation. After the police submitted their report on 28.02.2014, again not sending up O.P. nos. 2 to 11, the petitioner filed a second protest petition on 17.06.2014 challenging this police conclusion.
Despite these protest petitions, by order dated 25.07.2014, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada, accepted the final form submitted by the police and exonerated O.P. nos. 2 to 11, while taking cognizance only against the chargesheeted co-accused. This prompted the petitioner to approach the Patna High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of that order to the extent it accepted the police conclusion regarding O.P. nos. 2 to 11.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shailendra Singh, heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for O.P. nos. 2 to 11, and the learned APP for the State.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the case involved serious offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 379, 435, 436, 427, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He submitted that O.P. nos. 2 to 11 were specifically named in the FIR and were alleged to have actively participated in rioting, attempt to murder, using firearms, burning and destroying vehicles, and theft of mobile phones.
He pointed out that the important witnesses, including the informant, whose details are mentioned in the FIR as eye-witnesses to the entire occurrence, were examined by the investigating officer and supported the presence and involvement of O.P. nos. 2 to 11 at the place of occurrence. Despite this, the police exonerated them and only chargesheeted those apprehended at the spot.
According to the petitioner, the police mainly relied on statements of some so-called independent witnesses whose presence at the place of occurrence was doubtful, ignoring the consistent version of material witnesses named in the FIR. The petitioner also stressed that he had filed protest petitions on 09.11.2012 and 17.06.2014, copies of which were annexed, raising clear objections to the police report and praying that cognizance be taken against all named accused, including O.P. nos. 2 to 11.
His core grievance was that, when passing the impugned cognizance order on 25.07.2014, the learned Magistrate did not consider the protest petitions on record, nor did he give the informant an opportunity of hearing before accepting the police conclusion in favour of O.P. nos. 2 to 11.
To support his submissions, the petitioner’s counsel relied on several Supreme Court judgments governing the role of the Magistrate when a final report is filed and when some accused are not sent up:
First, in Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537, the Supreme Court explained the options available to a Magistrate when a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted. Importantly, it held that if the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance and drop proceedings, or decides that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against some persons named in the FIR, the informant must be given notice and an opportunity of being heard before such a decision is taken. The judgment emphasizes that otherwise the informant’s FIR may fail of its purpose wholly or in part, causing prejudice.
Second, he relied on Dharam Pal and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2014) 3 SCC 306, where the Supreme Court discussed the powers of the Magistrate when a final report under Section 173(2) is submitted. Paragraphs 34 to 36, reproduced in the Patna High Court judgment, clarify that the Magistrate can disagree with the police report, act on a protest petition, issue process, summon accused, and even commit the case to the Court of Session if necessary.
Third, in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 8 SCC 27, the Supreme Court clarified that before a Magistrate accepts a final report and exonerates accused, it is incumbent to apply his mind to the contents of the protest petition. The Magistrate must go through the materials, hear the complainant, and then decide whether to accept the final report or continue the matter. The Court also discussed how a protest petition may or may not be treated as a complaint, but at minimum it serves to draw the Magistrate’s attention to the case diary and requires careful scrutiny.
Fourth, the petitioner cited paragraph 124 of Amish Devgan vs. Union of India and Others, (2021) 1 SCC 1, where the Supreme Court again recognized that, on filing of a protest petition against a closure or final report, the Magistrate is obliged to consider the complainant’s objections and may reject the closure report and take cognizance.
On the other side, counsel for O.P. nos. 2 to 11 defended the Magistrate’s order. He argued that under Section 190(1) Cr.P.C., the power of the Magistrate to take cognizance is discretionary, and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had exercised this discretion in accordance with law. He submitted that if the petitioner was dissatisfied, he would have further opportunity during trial to seek summoning of O.P. nos. 2 to 11 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. if strong evidence later emerged against them.
Counsel for O.P. nos. 2 to 11 also contended that these opposite parties were not present at the place of occurrence and had been falsely implicated with mala fide intention. During investigation, independent witnesses allegedly stated that O.P. nos. 2 to 11 were not present when the offences took place. Further, the investigating officer examined technical evidence related to mobile tower location of these O.P.s, which, according to the defence, supported their plea and was recorded in the case diary.
After hearing both sides and perusing the impugned order and materials, the Patna High Court focused on two central aspects: the seriousness of the offences and the legal duty of the Magistrate when protest petitions are on record.
The Court noted that the case involved serious offences and that O.P. nos. 2 to 11 were named in the FIR. The police had chosen not to send them up for trial mainly by believing statements of some so-called independent persons, while material witnesses named in the FIR supported the informant’s allegations against these O.P.s.
The High Court recorded that the informant had admittedly filed two protest petitions—first during investigation, and second after submission of the police report. It observed that it is a “settled position of law” that upon filing a protest petition, the Magistrate is obliged to consider the contentions and pleas taken by the informant in such petition.
The judgment explains that upon receiving a protest petition, the Magistrate has several courses open: he may dismiss the protest petition; he may treat it as a complaint and proceed; he may take cognizance on the basis of materials in the case diary even against an accused not sent up; or he may order re-investigation. However, what is not permissible is to ignore the protest petition altogether.
In this case, the Court found that the learned Magistrate committed a legal error. While accepting the police report in respect of O.P. nos. 2 to 11, the Magistrate did not take into account the protest petitions filed by the petitioner. From the impugned order, it also did not appear that any attempt was made to inform the informant about the police conclusion regarding non-sending up of O.P. nos. 2 to 11, or to afford him an opportunity of hearing before the order was passed.
The Patna High Court held that this approach was “completely in violation” of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cited judgments, particularly Bhagwant Singh, Vishnu Kumar Tiwari and others dealing with protest petitions and notice to the informant.
On this basis, the Court concluded that the impugned order dated 25.07.2014, to the extent it accepted the police report and exonerated O.P. nos. 2 to 11, could not be sustained in law.
The Court therefore set aside the order only in respect of O.P. nos. 2 to 11. It directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada, to pass a fresh order regarding these opposite parties after giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity of hearing on his protest petition. The Magistrate has been instructed to pass an appropriate, reasoned order on the point of cognizance in respect of O.P. nos. 2 to 11, without being prejudiced by the High Court’s observations, and strictly according to the merits and in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
As a result, the Criminal Miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stood allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for informants and victims in criminal cases where the police file a final report not sending up some or all of the named accused.
The Patna High Court has reaffirmed that a Magistrate cannot mechanically accept a police final form exonerating some accused without:
• Considering any protest petition filed by the informant; and
• Giving the informant an opportunity to be heard before dropping proceedings against such accused.
For ordinary citizens, this means that if the police choose not to send certain persons for trial, the informant’s written objection (protest petition) must be taken seriously. The Magistrate has to apply his mind, look at the case diary, hear the informant, and then give a reasoned order.
The decision also clarifies that the availability of Section 319 Cr.P.C. at a later stage does not dilute the Magistrate’s duty at the stage of considering the police report and protest petition.
Practically, this judgment strengthens the rights of complainants in Bihar and provides a clear reminder to Magistrates to follow the Supreme Court’s guidelines while dealing with final reports and protest petitions.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can a Magistrate accept a police final report exonerating some named accused without considering the informant’s protest petition and without giving the informant a hearing?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the Magistrate is obliged to consider the protest petition, give the informant opportunity of hearing, and then pass a reasoned order on cognizance; failure to do so violates settled Supreme Court law. - Issue: What is the proper course when a final report does not send up certain accused named in the FIR?
Answer: The Magistrate may dismiss the protest petition, treat it as a complaint, take cognizance based on case diary materials even against those not sent up, or order further investigation, but cannot ignore the protest petition or deny the informant a hearing.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and Another, (1985) 2 SCC 537
- Dharam Pal and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2014) 3 SCC 306
- Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary Home Civil Secretariat Lucknow and Another, (2019) 8 SCC 27
- Amish Devgan vs. Union of India and Others, (2021) 1 SCC 1
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 48680 of 2014 (arising out of Nagar P.S. Case No. 557 of 2012, Nawada)
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 (2) PLJR 792
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shailendra Singh
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Suman Kumar, Advocate
- For O.P. Nos. 2 to 11: Mr. Hans Raj, Advocate
- For the State: Mr. Binod Kumar No. 3, APP
Nature of the case: Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order dated 25.07.2014 accepting final form and not taking cognizance against O.P. nos. 2 to 11 in Nagar P.S. Case No. 557 of 2012.
Date of High Court Judgment: 25.03.2025
Result: Petition allowed; Magistrate’s order set aside to the extent of O.P. nos. 2 to 11, with direction for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner on his protest petition.
Link to the judgement; https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiM0ODY4MCMyMDE0IzEjTg==-abQRhZ2hhuY=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
