Facts
The petitioner, informant in Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 83 of 2024, challenged the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order dated 2 September 2024 accepting the police Final Form.
Source reference: pp. 1–4, paras. 2–6The Magistrate’s order recorded that notice had been issued and that the petitioner had not appeared. The petitioner maintained that he had not been served.
Source reference: pp. 1–4, paras. 2–6The High Court called for a report from the CJM, which confirmed that no service report was available on the record.
Source reference: pp. 1–4, paras. 2–6Issues
1. Whether the Magistrate could accept the Final Form without ensuring that notice had been served on the informant and providing him an opportunity to be heard.
Source reference: pp. 4–6, paras. 7–102. Whether the order accepting the Final Form should be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 10Law Applied
Under Section 173(2)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where a Magistrate considers a police report and decides not to take cognizance or to drop proceedings, the informant must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 7–8In Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Anr., (1985) 2 SCC 537, the Supreme Court held that this opportunity is mandatory and that difficulty or delay in service does not justify depriving the informant of it.
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 7–8The court also referred to Balkeshwar v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 10012 of 2022, for the distinction between issuing notice and serving it in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 9Reasoning
The CJM’s report established that, although notice had been issued, there was no service report on the record.
Source reference: pp. 3–6, paras. 6–10The petitioner’s non-appearance therefore could not establish that he had received notice or had chosen not to participate.
Source reference: pp. 3–6, paras. 6–10Applying Bhagwant Singh, the court held that notice before acceptance of the Final Form could not be treated as a formality: the informant had to be afforded a genuine opportunity to be heard.
Source reference: pp. 3–6, paras. 6–10The absence of proof of service made the acceptance order procedurally defective.
Source reference: pp. 3–6, paras. 6–10Holding
The High Court quashed the CJM’s order dated 2 September 2024 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the Final Form after notifying the petitioner and ensuring his presence.
It also left the parties at liberty to explore a compromise before the concerned court and disposed of the application.
Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 11–12Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731
Original Court PDF
Khagendra Prasad DwivedivsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
