The Kerala High Court held that when an individual initially named as an accused in a First Information Report (FIR) is later removed from the list of accused during the course of investigation, the investigating officer is legally bound to notify the informant or complainant of such removal. The Court observed that this requirement is consistent with Section 157(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which mandates that if the officer in charge of a police station concludes there is no sufficient ground to proceed against a person, the officer must promptly inform the informant of that decision.
The case before the Court involved an FIR in which nine individuals had been named as accused. However, upon completion of the investigation, the final report listed only five of them as accused, effectively deleting four names. The investigating officer did not communicate this change to the informant. The Court found this omission to be a serious procedural lapse, emphasizing that both the investigating officer and the magistrate must ensure that the informant is aware of such modifications in the case.
The bench highlighted that a mere omission of names from the list of accused does not relieve the authorities from their obligation to keep the informant informed. The informant, who plays a crucial role in initiating the criminal process, must be given the opportunity to know why certain individuals initially named as accused were dropped from the proceedings. The Court stated that procedural fairness demands that the complainant or victim be granted the right to be heard before the names of accused persons are deleted.
In its reasoning, the Court referred to established legal principles derived from earlier judgments such as Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Anil Kumar v. Latha Mohan. These decisions have consistently held that when a magistrate chooses not to take cognizance against certain persons mentioned in the FIR, the magistrate is required to issue notice to the informant before dropping the case against them. Such a practice ensures transparency and prevents arbitrary exclusion of individuals from criminal proceedings without the knowledge of the complainant.
The Kerala High Court directed that the magistrate, upon receiving a final report that omits certain accused persons, must issue notice to the informant regarding the findings of the investigating officer. The magistrate should then provide the informant an opportunity to be heard before accepting the report and dropping the proceedings against any person. The Court remanded the case to the magistrate for compliance with these procedural safeguards.
Through this ruling, the Kerala High Court reaffirmed the principle that the rights of an informant or victim are integral to the criminal justice process. The decision ensures that victims are not sidelined by unilateral actions taken during investigation and reinforces the obligation of transparency on the part of investigating agencies. The Court’s interpretation serves to uphold procedural justice and maintain accountability within the investigative process.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.