Criminal Procedure Code

Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police

(1985) 2 SCC 537

Facts

A person died after being taken into circumstances that led his family to allege serious police misconduct.
An FIR was registered and investigated.
Police submitted a final report stating that no case should proceed.
The Magistrate accepted the report without giving notice to the first informant.
The informant challenged the closure.
The Supreme Court examined:
the Magistrate’s options upon receiving a police report;
and the informant’s right to participate before proceedings are terminated.

Whether the informant must be heard before a closure report is accepted.
What choices the Magistrate has under Section 173.
Whether notice is also required when the Magistrate decides not to proceed against some persons named in the FIR.

On receiving a police report, the Magistrate may:
accept the report and drop proceedings;
disagree and take cognizance;
or direct further investigation.
Where the Magistrate proposes to:
accept a closure report; or
exclude persons named by the informant, the informant must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The informant may file a protest petition pointing to:
ignored evidence;
investigative omissions;
or legal errors.
The right to be heard does not mean that the informant controls the prosecution.
The Magistrate remains independent.
Notice is required because acceptance of closure finally affects the informant’s legitimate interest in the reported offence.
BNSS Sections 193 and 210 preserve the report-and-cognizance framework, and victim/informant participation has been strengthened more generally.

The police report was not a private administrative document.
Once placed before the Magistrate, it triggered a judicial decision that could end the criminal process.
The informant had initiated the machinery by reporting a cognizable offence.
Accepting closure without notice deprived the informant of the opportunity to show:
that witnesses were not examined;
documents were ignored;
the police conclusion contradicted the record;
or further investigation was necessary.
The Court balanced this interest against the accused’s protection from endless proceedings.
It did not require a full adversarial hearing resembling trial.
A reasonable opportunity to make submissions or file a protest petition was sufficient.
The Magistrate could then:
accept the police view;
reject it;
take cognizance;
or order further investigation.
The same reasoning applied where the police report proposed proceedings against only some of the persons named.
Excluding others could substantially defeat the informant’s original allegation.
Therefore, notice was required before the Magistrate made that decision final.
The Court’s approach added procedural transparency without transferring investigative or judicial authority to the complainant.

The Supreme Court held that the informant must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before a closure report is accepted or proceedings are dropped against named persons.
It clarified the Magistrate’s three principal options upon receiving the police report.
The case is the foundation of the protest-petition hearing requirement.