Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment where the Court laid down the Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions reached by the police in their report, just as they are not bound by the conclusions of a complainant in a complaint.  
• The Judgment was delivered by a 2 judge Bench of Supreme Court consisting of Justice O Chinnappa Reddy and Justice Ranjit Singh Sarkaria. 

Facts   

• Gurnam Singh, a resident of Chandigarh, submitted a complaint to the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, alleging that H.S. Bains (appellant) and two others trespassed into his house on 11th August 1979, at about 8 a.m. 
• The complaint alleged that H.S. Bains threatened to kill Gurnam Singh and his natural son if he did not take away his son Aman Deep Singh from the house of his sister Bakshish Kaur, who had adopted the boy. 
• Bakshish Kaur was the widow of the appellant's brother, and the appellant disapproved of the adoption. 
• According to the complaint, the appellant pointed a revolver at the complainant but fled with his companions when the complainant raised an alarm. 
• The complaint was filed on 13th August 1979, as the previous two days were holidays. 
• The Magistrate ordered a police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 
• After investigation, police submitted a report under Section 173 CrPC stating that the case was not true and should be dropped, as they found the appellant was in Amritsar with District Magistrate Jai Singh at 9 a.m. on 11th August 1979. 
• The Magistrate disagreed with the police conclusion, took cognizance of the case under Sections 448, 451, and 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and issued process against the appellant. 
• The appellant filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Case in the Punjab and Haryana High Court to quash the proceedings, but the application was dismissed. 
• The appellant then obtained Special Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court's order. 
• The appellant's counsel argued that the Magistrate issued process without recording statements under Section 200 CrPC and took cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) as if upon a police report that disclosed no offence. 
• The counsel contended that upon receiving a negative police report, the Magistrate should have either ordered further investigation or taken cognizance as if upon a complaint and recorded statements before issuing process. 

Issues Involved  

• Whether the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance in the facts of the present case when report is submitted by the police officer under Section 173 of CrPC that the proceedings should be dropped? 

Observations 

• Upon receiving a complaint, a Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence and record statements of the complainant and witnesses under Section 200 CrPC. 
• After recording statements, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint under Section 203 if there is insufficient ground for proceeding, or issue process under Section 204 if there is sufficient ground. 
• The Magistrate may postpone issuing process and either conduct an inquiry personally or direct an investigation by police or another person to determine if sufficient grounds exist for proceeding. 
• Alternatively, the Magistrate may order a police investigation under Section 156(3) without taking cognizance of the offence initially. 
• When the police submit their report under Section 173(1), the Magistrate has three distinct options: 
  • Drop the proceedings if there is no sufficient ground to proceed 
  • Take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) based on the police report and issue process, regardless of police conclusions 
  • Take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) based on the original complaint and examine witnesses under Section 200 
• A police investigation under Section 156(3) does not erase the original complaint, allowing the Magistrate to still proceed under Sections 200, 203, and 204 if desired. 
• Section 190(1)(c) was never intended to apply to cases where there is a police report under Section 173(1). 
• The Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions reached by the police in their report, just as they are not bound by the conclusions of a complainant in a complaint.

Conclusion 

• The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate is not bound by the police's conclusion in a report under Section 173 CrPC. They may independently take cognizance and proceed with the case if sufficient grounds exist.