A Magistrate must hear the first informant before accepting a police report under Section 169.

The petitioner was Accused No. 2 in C.R. No. 89 of 2020 registered at Vasai Police Station.

The Investigating Officer submitted a report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), stating that there was no evidence against the petitioner and two other accused.

Although the complainant’s say was called for, she did not file it.

By order dated 27 October 2021, the JMFC, Vasai, accepted the report and released the petitioner for want of evidence.

The original complainant challenged that order before the Sessions Court, contending that she had not been heard before the Section 169 report was accepted.

The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision, set aside the JMFC’s order, and directed the JMFC to reconsider the report after giving notice and an opportunity of hearing to the first informant.

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash the revisional order.

Whether the petitioner, who had been released by the JMFC under Section 169 CrPC and was not heard in the revision proceedings, was an aggrieved person entitled to challenge the Sessions Court’s remand order.

Whether the Magistrate was required to give the original complainant/first informant an opportunity of hearing before accepting the Investigating Officer’s report under Section 169 CrPC.

Whether the Sessions Court’s order setting aside the JMFC’s order and directing fresh consideration suffered from perversity or illegality.

Section 169 CrPC permits the release of an accused when, upon investigation, sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion is lacking; however, before accepting the police report and effectively terminating proceedings against the accused, the Magistrate must provide the first informant/original complainant an opportunity of being heard.

The Court relied on the co-ordinate Bench decision in Maruti Kaluba More v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Cri. Revn. Application No. 205 of 202, decided on 4 February 2015, which recognised the Magistrate’s obligation to hear the first informant before accepting a discharge/release report submitted under Section 169 CrPC.

A person already released under such an order is not necessarily prejudiced by a direction for fresh consideration, as he cannot be arraigned again unless the Magistrate issues summons against him.

The High Court held that the Sessions Court’s order was limited to correcting a procedural omission—namely, the failure to hear the original complainant before acceptance of the Section 169 report—and did not determine the merits of the allegations against the petitioner.

Since the petitioner had already been released by the JMFC and the State had not challenged that order, the release order had attained finality as against the State, and the petitioner was not an aggrieved party in the relevant sense.

Nevertheless, the Magistrate’s acceptance of the police report without granting the first informant an effective opportunity of hearing was procedurally defective.

The Sessions Court therefore correctly directed the JMFC to reconsider the report after hearing the complainant.

The High Court further found that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner because he would not be re-arraigned unless summons were issued, and found no perversity or illegality in the revisional order.

It held that the original complainant was entitled to be heard before the Magistrate accepted the Section 169 CrPC report and that the Sessions Court was justified in setting aside the JMFC’s order and directing fresh consideration.

Finding no infirmity in the impugned order, the Court rejected the writ petition, discharged the Rule, and disposed of the matter accordingly.