Introduction:

In the case of Suman Prajapati vs. State of U.P. and Another [2025 LiveLaw (AB) 101], the Allahabad High Court examined whether a Magistrate is bound to issue notice to an informant when taking cognizance only against charge-sheeted persons while leaving out individuals named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted. A single bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan ruled that while it is generally advisable to hear the informant, it is not a strict legal requirement. The Court reasoned that the informant has other legal remedies available, such as filing a protest petition or seeking summoning under Section 319 CrPC.

The case stemmed from a matrimonial cruelty complaint where the police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet only against one accused, Tripurari Prajapati, while exonerating five others named in the FIR. The informant, Suman Prajapati, challenged the Magistrate’s decision to take cognizance only against the charge-sheeted accused without issuing her notice. She contended that this deprived her of an opportunity to contest the exclusion of the other accused. The High Court, however, dismissed her plea, holding that the Magistrate’s decision was legally sound and did not violate the informant’s rights.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The informant, Suman Prajapati, argued that the Investigating Officer (IO) failed to inform her about the progress of the investigation and did not supply her with the case diary before submitting the final report. She asserted that principles of natural justice required the Magistrate to notify her before deciding whether to proceed against only some of the accused. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Bhagwat Singh vs. Commissioner of Police, her counsel contended that an informant must be heard before a Magistrate takes cognizance of a charge sheet that excludes certain individuals named in the FIR.

On the other hand, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) submitted that issuing notice to the informant at this stage would cause unnecessary delay. The prosecution contended that a Magistrate has the discretion to rely on the police report and proceed with cognizance without hearing the informant regarding the non-charge-sheeted accused. They also argued that the informant retains the right to challenge the final report through a protest petition and that Section 319 CrPC allows for the summoning of additional accused if new evidence emerges during the trial.

Court’s Judgment:

The High Court ruled that while a Magistrate should hear an informant before excluding individuals named in the FIR from cognizance, this is not a mandatory requirement. The Court observed that if the Magistrate is satisfied with the police report and finds no grounds to summon the non-charge-sheeted accused, they may proceed without issuing notice to the informant. It further clarified that the informant has ample legal remedies, such as filing a protest petition or moving an application under Section 319 CrPC during the trial if evidence emerges against the excluded accused.

Addressing the informant’s reliance on the Bhagwat Singh judgment, the Court noted that while the Supreme Court had emphasized the importance of hearing an informant before a Magistrate accepts a final report dropping charges, this principle does not automatically apply in every case. In the present matter, since the stage of Section 319, CrPC had not yet been reached, and the informant still had legal recourse, the Court found no merit in the plea. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the Magistrate acted within their discretion in taking cognizance only against the charge-sheeted accused.