Magistrate May Take Cognizance Under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Ignoring Police Final Report Based on Alibi.

The applicants sought to quash an order dated 17.02.2025 by the Special Judge (POCSO), Aligarh, which rejected a police final report and summoned the applicants for trial.

An FIR was lodged alleging the kidnapping and gang rape of a minor girl.

While the victim supported the allegations in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C.

the Investigating Officer (IO) submitted a "Final Report" (closure report) based on a plea of alibi supported by mobile location data and independent witnesses.

The informant filed a protest petition, which the trial court allowed, summoning the applicants to face trial under Sections 376D, 342, 363, 366 IPC, and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

1. Whether a Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of an offense and summon accused persons after the police have submitted a final report recommending closure of the case.

2. Whether the "plea of alibi" and disputed questions of fact can be adjudicated by the High Court while exercising inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (formerly Section 482 Cr.P.C.).

The court applied Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., which allows a Magistrate to take cognizance upon a police report regardless of the officer's opinion.

It relied on Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar, establishing that a Magistrate may disagree with a police closure report and issue process if the material in the case diary justifies proceeding.

Further, it cited Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI to affirm that a Magistrate must independently apply their mind to the facts emerging from the investigation.

and Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati vs. State of U.P., which restricts the exercise of inherent powers to the "rarest of rare cases" where an abuse of process is evident.

The Court reasoned that the Magistrate is not bound by the Investigating Officer's conclusions. In this case, the Magistrate correctly prioritized the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., which provided a prima facie basis for prosecution.

The Court observed that the IO committed a gross illegality by unilaterally accepting the applicants' plea of alibi and ignoring the victim's testimony.

It held that the burden of proving an alibi lies solely on the accused during the trial stage through evidence and cross-examination, and such a defense cannot be evaluated by the High Court during a quashing petition.

The Court emphasized that it cannot conduct a "pre-trial" under Section 528 BNSS when the allegations disclose a cognizable offense.

The Court dismissed the application, holding that the trial court’s order to summon the applicants was legally sound as it was based on existing material in the case diary.

The High Court refused to quash the proceedings, clarifying that the plea of alibi must be proven during the actual trial.