Section 190(1)(b) CrPC | Magistrate's Cognizance Power Survives Police Final Report : Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed the principle that a Magistrate is not bound by the Investigating Officer's final report and may independently take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if there is sufficient prima facie evidence. This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that justice is not scuttled at the threshold due to investigative conclusions, particularly in cases involving serious offences like those under the POCSO Act.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The applicants, Rajvir and Dauji Ram, were accused in Case Crime No. 888 of 2023 registered at Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh, under Sections 363, 366, 376D, and 342 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 23.12.2023 by the first informant, alleging that her minor daughter (the victim) was enticed away on 21.12.2023 while they were in the market. The victim was recovered on 13.01.2024, and her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC implicated the applicants in kidnapping and gang rape.

Key Facts

• 23.12.2023: FIR registered under Sections 363 and 366 IPC against an unknown person.
• 13.01.2024: Victim recovered; her statement under Section 161 CrPC recorded, alleging kidnapping and gang rape by the applicants.
• 29.01.2024: Victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC reiterated the allegations.
• 13.01.2024: Victim medically examined; no external or internal injuries found. Age determination report suggested she was 16-17 years old.
• 19.05.2024: Investigating Officer submitted a final report, concluding that the applicants were not present at the place of the incident based on call detail records (CDRs) and statements of independent witnesses.
• 31.01.2025: First informant filed a protest petition, praying for rejection of the final report and summoning of the accused.
• 17.02.2025: Special Judge (POCSO Act) allowed the protest petition and summoned the applicants to face trial.
• 12.06.2025: Non-bailable warrant issued against the applicants.
• Present Application: Filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for quashing the orders dated 17.02.2025 and 12.06.2025.

Procedural History

• 23.12.2023: FIR registered (Case Crime No. 888/2023).
• 13.01.2024: Victim recovered; statement under Section 161 CrPC recorded.
• 29.01.2024: Victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded.
• 16.01.2024: Age determination report submitted by Chief Medical Officer, Aligarh.
• 19.05.2024: Final report submitted by Investigating Officer.
• 31.01.2025: Protest petition filed by first informant.
• 17.02.2025: Trial court allowed protest petition and summoned applicants.
• 12.06.2025: Non-bailable warrant issued.
• Present: Application under Section 528 BNSS filed before Allahabad High Court.

The Parties' Positions

For the Applicants

• The applicants were falsely implicated due to ulterior motives of the informant and her husband.
• The Investigating Officer, after thorough investigation, found no evidence linking the applicants to the crime and submitted a final report.
• Call detail records (CDRs) proved that the applicants were not present at the place of the incident on 21.12.2023.
• Earlier, a similar FIR (No. 144 of 2022) was lodged against the applicants, which was found to be false and resulted in a final report (No. 34 of 2022).
• The trial court erred in summoning the applicants without considering the material collected during investigation.

For the Respondent/State

• The victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC clearly implicated the applicants in the offence.
• The Investigating Officer wrongly submitted a final report despite sufficient evidence.
• The trial court correctly allowed the protest petition and summoned the applicants based on prima facie evidence.
• There was no illegality in the impugned orders, and the present application lacks merit.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC even after the Investigating Officer submits a final report concluding that no case is made out against the accused, and whether the High Court can quash such cognizance under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS at the pre-trial stage.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicants

• Relied on the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer, which concluded that the applicants were not present at the place of the incident.
• Argued that the plea of alibi was supported by CDRs and statements of independent witnesses.
• Contended that the trial court erred in summoning the applicants without considering the material collected during investigation.
• Cited precedents to argue that the High Court should quash proceedings where no prima facie case is made out.

For the Respondent/State

• Emphasized the victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, which implicated the applicants.
• Argued that the Magistrate is not bound by the Investigating Officer's final report and can independently take cognizance if there is sufficient evidence.
• Contended that the plea of alibi cannot be considered at the stage of taking cognizance and must be proved during trial.
• Cited precedents to argue that the High Court should not interfere with the Magistrate's order unless it is perverse or based on no material.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 190 CrPC, which empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence upon:

1. Receiving a complaint of facts constituting the offence;
2. Upon a police report of such facts; or
3. Upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge.

The Court observed that the Magistrate is not bound by the Investigating Officer's conclusion in the final report. Even if the police submit a final report stating that no offence is made out, the Magistrate can independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance if there is sufficient prima facie evidence. This principle was reiterated with reference to several Supreme Court judgments:

"The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, in exercise of his powers under Section 190(1)(b) and direct the issue of process to the accused."

The Court relied on the following key precedents:

• Minu Kumari and another v. State of Bihar and others (2006) 4 SCC 359: Held that a Magistrate can take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC even if the police report concludes that no case is made out.
• Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 609: Reiterated that the Magistrate is empowered to issue process against persons not named in the police report if there is sufficient material linking them to the crime.
• Dr. Nupur Talwar v. CBI Delhi & another AIR 2012 SC 87: Held that the Superior Court should exercise utmost restraint before interfering with an order of cognizance by the Magistrate unless it is perverse or based on no material.

The Court further clarified that the plea of alibi cannot be considered at the stage of taking cognizance. The burden to prove such a plea lies on the accused, who must adduce evidence during the trial. The Court emphasized that inconsistencies or contradictions in witness statements cannot be appreciated at the pre-trial stage, and the prosecution must be given an opportunity to cross-examine defence witnesses.

Addressing the applicants' reliance on the final report and CDRs, the Court held:

"The Investigating Officer committed gross illegality by filing final report, relying upon the statements of the witnesses who supported plea of alibi of the applicants. The investigation cannot unilaterally decide an alibi is true just because a few witnesses say so, especially if there is a prima facie evidence linking the accused to the crime."

The Court also cautioned against the misuse of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS to quash proceedings at the threshold. It cited:

• Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. AIR 2021 SC 5711: Held that the power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases.
• Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati v. State of U.P. (2022) 4 SCC 549: Reiterated that the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of allegations at the stage of quashing.
• Ramveer Upadhyay and Another v. State of UP and another 2022 SCC Online SC 484: Held that criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud merely because the complaint is lodged by a political rival or appears frivolous.

The Verdict

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the application under Section 528 BNSS, refusing to quash the orders dated 17.02.2025 and 12.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act). The Court held that:

1. The Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of the offence based on the victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, despite the final report.
2. The plea of alibi raised by the applicants cannot be considered at the stage of taking cognizance and must be proved during trial.
3. The High Court cannot interfere with the Magistrate's order unless it is perverse or based on no material.
4. The truth of the prosecution case must be established during trial, and the proceedings cannot be scuttled at the threshold.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Magistrate's Discretion Is Not Bound by Investigative Conclusions

• The judgment reaffirms that a Magistrate is not a rubber stamp for the Investigating Officer's conclusions. Even if the police submit a final report stating that no offence is made out, the Magistrate can independently take cognizance if there is sufficient prima facie evidence.
• Practitioners must argue that victim statements, medical reports, and other material evidence should be considered holistically, and not dismissed merely because the Investigating Officer opines otherwise.

Plea of Alibi Must Be Proved During Trial

• The plea of alibi cannot be considered at the stage of taking cognizance or framing of charges. The burden lies on the accused to adduce evidence during trial to prove their absence from the scene of the crime.
• Defence counsel must be prepared to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and present their own evidence during trial to substantiate the plea of alibi.

High Court's Restraint in Quashing Proceedings

• The High Court will not interfere with the Magistrate's order of taking cognizance unless it is perverse or based on no material. This principle applies even in cases where the complaint appears frivolous or motivated.
• Practitioners must ensure that protest petitions and complaints are backed by strong prima facie evidence to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance. Mere allegations without material support are unlikely to succeed.

Implications for POCSO Act Cases

• In cases under the POCSO Act, where the victim's age and statements are critical, the Magistrate is obliged to take cognizance if there is prima facie evidence, even if the Investigating Officer submits a final report.
• Defence counsel must be cautious in relying on investigative conclusions and should focus on trial-stage strategies to challenge the prosecution's case.