Victim/informant must be informed about deletion of names from the list of accused in the final report: Kerala High Court

Justice K. Babu allowed the appeal and stated: “The competent judge shall notify the informant/victim of the investigating officer’s determination that there are insufficient grounds to take action against any of the accused.”

In this case, the Court dismissed an application for revision of a criminal case filed by an accused, finding that the police had failed to inform the informant/victim under Section 157(2) of the Public Prosecution Service about the removal of some accused from the final report.

The High Court, citing Bhagwant Singh v Commissioner of Police and Others (1985) and Anil Kumar v Latha Mohan and Others (2021), observed that the informant should have been notified before removing the accused from the party list. The Court, therefore, ordered registration of the present criminal revision petition.

The court observed that initially nine persons were listed as accused in the FIR. After investigation under Section 157 of CrPC, the final report was filed in which only five of the persons initially named as accused were listed while four persons were removed from the list of accused. Moreover, the investigating officer added one more person as accused.

It was submitted to the Court that while conducting an investigation under Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the investigating officer should have informed the informant/victim that the persons struck off as accused were not under investigation and that no offence was known against them.

The Court, therefore, held that the investigating officer should have informed the informant/victim about the removal of the persons who were originally named as accused in the FIR from the group of accused in the final report.

“As per Section 157(2) Cr.PC, the Superintendent of Police shall immediately inform the informant/victim if he is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for initiating an investigation.”

In addition, the Court found that the judge who took note of the crimes in the final report should have informed the informant/victim about them.

Quoting Bhagwant Singh (supra) and Anil Kumar (supra), the court said: “The Supreme Court held that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under Section 173(2) decides not to take cognizance of the offence and quash the proceedings or is of the opinion that there is no sufficient cause to proceed against any of the persons named in the FIR, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and give him an opportunity to be heard at the time of considering the report.

Going into the facts of the case, the Court observed that the Magistrate merely took cognizance of the offences against five persons and did not proceed against four persons who were initially cited as accused in the FIR without issuing a notice and informing the informant/victim. “There is no justification for denying the informant the opportunity to be heard at the time the judge is considering the report.”the Court added

Therefore, the Court directed the Magistrate to issue a notice to the informant/victim regarding the finding of the Investigating Officer that there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against some of the accused who were originally cited as accused in the FIR and that they be removed from the list of parties.

Counsel for the defendants: Advocates MR Sarin, MR Sasinth, P Santhoshkumar, Parvathi Krishna, Saumya PS

Case number: CRL.RC NO. 2 OF 2024

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 579

Click here to read/download the order