Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Satish Kumar Ravi v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. has held that when a coercive action against the accused is restrained by interim order by the court then chargesheet cannot be filed. 

What was the Background of the Satish Kumar Ravi v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. Case?  

• The case involves a criminal matter involving Satish Kumar Ravi as the petitioner against the State of Jharkhand.  
• The present case is a landlord-tenant dispute involving the wife of the then Jharkhand Director General of Police (DGP) 
• The tenant filed a First Information Report (FIR) against the landlord's family alleging: 
  • Forced entry 
  • Property damage 
  • Physical assault  
• On 18th August 2023 the Supreme Court passed an interim order barring police from taking further action against the landlord 
• On 30th September 2023 despite the interim order, police filed a charge sheet. 
• Prior to this, in April 2023, a proclamation against the petitioner was published, which violated a 2017 High Court interim order restraining coercive action 
• On 1st October 2024 the Supreme Court issued contempt notices to three officers involved. 
• On 4th November 2024 the officers sought time to explain their conduct through affidavits. 
• The case highlights potential systemic issues of law enforcement not fully respecting court-issued interim orders, even when those orders explicitly restrict certain actions against an individual. 
• The legal proceedings originated from a previous case in the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, which led to a Special Leave to Appeal petition being filed in the Supreme Court of India. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • Three officers interpreted a previous court order differently. They viewed the court's direction not to take further action against the petitioner as merely preventing coercive action, not a complete prohibition on legal proceedings. 
  • The Court found a problematic letter dated 15th  April 2011, from the Additional Director General of Police, Jharkhand.  
    • This letter stated that even if a court passes an order preventing coercive action, there is no prohibition on filing a charge sheet against an accused. 
  • The Supreme Court explicitly declared that paragraph 3 of the 15th April 2011 letter is "completely illegal". 
  • The Court directed the state's counsel to bring this observation to the attention of the Additional Director General of Police and expected the letter to be immediately modified. 
  • Regarding the three officers who submitted an affidavit explaining their interpretation, the Court: 
    • Accepted their apology 
    • Discharged the notice of contempt against them 
    • Decided no further action was necessary against them 
  • The Court also maintained the interim relief previously granted to the petitioner and scheduled the next hearing for 17th January 2025. 
  • The core observation seems to be a criticism of the police department's approach to court orders, emphasizing that an order preventing coercive action should be respected comprehensively, not narrowly interpreted. 

What is a Police Report or a Chargesheet? 

About: 

• A chargesheet, as defined under Section 193 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, (BNSS).  
• It is the final report prepared by a police officer or investigative agency after completing their investigation of a case.  
• The evidentiary value of chargesheet is not substantive as it is made by the Police officer and charges framed are based on his opinion which are yet to be proved.

Contents of Chargesheet:

• The names of the parties. 
• The nature of the information.  
• The names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case.  
• Whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom. 
• Whether the accused has been arrested. 
• Whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties.

Landmark Judgements: 

• H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi (1954): 
  • The Supreme Court noted that that the process of investigation generally consists of: 
    • Proceeding to the concerned spot. 
    • Ascertainment of facts and circumstances. 
    • Discovery and arrest. 
    • Collection of evidence which includes examination of various persons, search of places and seizure of things. 
    • Formation of an opinion on whether an offence is made out and filing the chargesheet accordingly. 
• Abhinandan Jha and Others v. Dinesh Mishra (1968): 
  • It was stated in this case that the submission of the final report/chargesheet depends on the nature of the opinion formed after the investigation. 
• Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1985): 
  • The Court discussed the three options available to a Magistrate on receiving a police report under Section 173(2): 
    • Accept report and take cognizance. 
    • Direct further investigation under Section 156(3). 
    • Disagree with report and discharge accused. 
• K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991): 
  • The Court held that the chargesheet need not elaborate evaluating the evidence, as that is for the trial stage. 
  • However, it should disclose/refer to facts as per requirements of Section 173(2) CrPC and state rules. 
• Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat (2022): 
  • The Court explained that for forming an opinion under Section 173(2)(i)(d) CrPC, the investigating officer must collect corroborative evidence to support any information received during investigation. 
  • Mere suspicion is not enough, there must be grave suspicion based on sufficient materials to presume the accused committed the alleged offence. 
• Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand (2024): 
  • The Supreme Court gave the following guidelines regarding the details to be included in the police report/chargesheet under Section 173(2) CrPC: 
    • Names of parties 
    • Nature of information 
    • Names of persons acquainted with circumstances 
    • Whether any offence appears committed and by whom 
    • Whether accused arrested 
    • Whether accused released on bond, with or without sureties 
    • Whether accused forwarded in custody under Section 170 
    • Whether medical report attached in certain offences 

What is Section 193 of BNSS?

• This Section deals with the report of police officer on completion of investigation.  
• Sub Section (1) states that every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.   
• Sub Section (2) states that  the investigation in relation to an offence under sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or under sections 4, 6, 8 or section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 shall be completed within two months from the date on which the information was recorded by the officer in charge of the police station.   
• Sub Section (3) states that: 
  • As soon as the investigation is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward, including through electronic communication to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form as the State Government may, by rules provide, stating—   
    • The names of the parties  
    • The nature of the information  
    • The names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;   
    • Whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom  
    • Whether the accused has been arrested  
    • Whether the accused has been released on his bond or bail bond;   
    • Whether the accused has been forwarded in custody under section 190; Whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70 or section 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023  
    • The sequence of custody in case of electronic device.  
  • The police officer shall, within a period of ninety days, inform the progress of the investigation by any means including through electronic communication to the informant or the victim.  
  • The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as the State Government may, by rules, provide, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.   
• Sub Section (4) states that where a superior officer of police has been appointed under Section 177, the report shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation.   
• Sub Section (5) states that whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond or bail bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or bail bond or otherwise as he thinks fit.   
• Sub Section (6) states that when such report is in respect of a case to which section 190 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report—   
  • All documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation.  
  • The statements recorded under section 180 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.   
• Sub Section (7) states that if the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.   
• Sub Section (8) states that subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (7), the police officer investigating the case shall also submit such number of copies of the police report along with other documents duly indexed to the Magistrate for supply to the accused as required under section 230: Provided that supply of report and other documents by electronic communication shall be considered as duly served.   
• Sub Section (9) states that nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (3) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form as the State Government may, by rules, provide; and the provisions of sub-sections (3) to (8) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (3).  
• Provided that further investigation during the trial may be conducted with the permission of the Court trying the case and the same shall be completed within a period of ninety days which may be extended with the permission of the Court.