Babu vs State of Karnataka

This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

The Indi Police had registered a case in Crime No. 149 of 1996 for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC in respect of a murder that had taken place on 12-8-1996. At that point of time, the offender was not known. In the course of investigsation in Crime No. 150 of 1998 of Sindgi Police Station, one Syed Kamble was arrested on 9-5-1998 and during his interrogation he revealed that himself along with the present petitioner had committed the offence in Crime No. 149 of 1996. It is also stated that in respect of Crime No. 149 of 1996, the Police had filed a "C" report on 7-7-1998 and that the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indi, has accepted the said report on 23-1-1999. The order relating to the ''C'' report is mentioned in the application submitted by the Circle Inspector of Police to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indi, the photostat copy of which is produced for perusal.

The Act of filing of ''C''report by the investigating Officer and equally the judicial order of the Magistrate accepting the ''C'' report and closure of the case per se, illegal. In view of the relevant provisions contained in Cr. P.C. relating to the investigations and filing of final reports.

Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, clause (b) of sub-section (1) empowers the investigating Officer not to proceed with the investigation if there are no sufficient grounds of entering on an investigation in respect of a complaint submitted. He can make a report of it and submit the same to the Government and as well to the Magistrate concerned. In cases where despite the fact that the accused is absconding, if investigation is complete, a final report under Section 173 could be filed before the Magistrate showing the accused as absconding. Filing of the final report also would not disentitle the Investigating Officer to continue the investigation. The provisions of Section 173 empowers the Investigating Officer to continue the investigation despite the filing of a final report to collect any further evidence and can submit the same before the Magistrate for consideration.

The Karnataka Police Manual 1998, Volume 2, Instructions 1567 at page 244 lays down guidelines to the Investigating Officers in respect of filing of final reports. In the said instructions, in a case where there is no prospect of obtaining any further clue and that nothing more can be done in the case. A report has to be submitted treating the case as undetected and the same has to be sent to the Magistrate in Form 158. The said instructions also deal with filing of final report in cases where the complaint made on account of mistake of fact, mistake of law or the dispute of civil nature or it is false. The filing of final reports on the contingency other than for want of clue may find justification to file such final reports under Section 157(1)(b) of Cr. P.C., although it may be after investigation. Where there is no sufficient ground to file an incriminating report against the accused. Even in respect of such reports, an opportunity has to be given to the complainant before it is accepted. However, to close a case only on the ground of want of clue and undetectable, there is no provision in Cr. P.C. to justifying filing of such a final report and to seek closure of the case.

The reading of Section 173 makes it explicit that a report filed under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. is one with a positive incriminating material against the accused and for proceeding further in the matter to deal with the case as per law, the said provision does not enable the Investigating Officer to file a final report for closure of a case on the ground of want of clue the case is undetected. In fact, any such report filed on the ground that it is undetected for want of clue can never be construed as a final report, since investigation in such a case is not complete. The connotation of final report means that after the investigation is completed after collecting all the incriminating material a final report has to be filed under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. by the Investigating Officer. The Government Order No. OE:214:Police:98, dated 7th August, 1998 categorically declares that the instructions issued have no over riding effect over the provisions of the IPC or Cr. P.C. or the other legislations.

May be on account of the instructions and guidelines in the Karnataka Police manual, ''C'' report in question might have been filed. But in the context of legal situation discussed above, the procedure of filing of ''C'' report on the ground that the case is undetectable and seeking closure of the case on that ground appears to be illegal and impermissible. Moreso, where grave offences are committed, it is not proper in law for the Investigating Officer to get rid of the case conveniently after lapse of some time to seek the closure of the case under the pretext of ''C'' report for the reason that there is no clue and the case is undetectable. Such a course of action is not warranted in the relevant provisions of Cr. P.C. It is only in summons cases where the investigation is not completed within six months under Section 5 of the Section 167 of the Cr. P.C. the Magistrate has power to order the stoppage of investigation and otherwise the powers of Investigating Officer to do bona fide investigation even after filing of final report is envisaged under sub-section (5) of Section 173 of the Cr. P.C.

Sometimes, there may be genuine cases for want of clue any investigation would be impossible and it may be really a undetectable case. But, however, to categorise this type of cases with the type of cases like a complaint is found to be false or based on mistake of law or case being purely of a civil nature would be improper. In the latter type of cases giving quietus matter may be desirable by filing report in that regard. But however, in case where there is no clue available closure of a case by filing ''C'' report would not be justified in law and if the case is once closed and consigned to records becomes out of sight and eventually becomes out of mind also in a short course of time.

We do find in cases where accused is absconding, case is split up and after complying with the formalities of issuance of all coercive forces for securing the attendance, case would be consigned to long pending registers maintained in the Courts. However, periodical review is done by the Courts in respect of cases in long pending register and moniter the progress in securing the attendance of the absconding accused. Therefore, it is desirable that the cases where there is no clue available immediately and undetectable case without filing any final ''C'' report in the manner now practiced, a separate register can be maintained and periodical review of progress is to be monitered by the concerned Superintendents of Police. Otherwise, the present practice has lurking danger of allowing the real culprits go scot free by abusing the process of law.

In the course of argument, I am informed that sometimes in theft cases for want of clue when it becomes undetectable that the property involved in the theft is covered by any insurance unless ''C'' report is filed, it is not possible for the complainant to get the insured amount from the Insurance Company. However, this submission lacks merit. What is required for the Insurance Company. Corrections carried out as per order dated 7-6-2001. Officer in law would be some kind of proof that the subject-matter of a claim is a case of genuine theft, in order to satisfy the said requirement, it is not necessary for the investigation, authorities to hustle through the process and to file ''C'' report after completion of 90 days. On production of necessary certificate from the Police, investigating agency that the complaint of theft is a genuine complaint, the insurance companies have to act upon such material and to consider the claims.

8-A. Coming to the merits of the case, the accused has come up with a request for grant of anticipatory bail. Even after getting clue about the accused, the Investigating Officer has not been successful in apprehending him. Hence, in the interests of the investigating agency, if a conditional order of anticipatory bail is granted, it may be more helpful

for the investigating agency to proceed with expeditious and effective investigation.

Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed. The investigating agency is directed to admit the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 149 of 1996 of Indi Police Station, on taking a bond for Rs. 50,000/- with the like surety. The petitioner is directed to appear before the investigating agency within ten days from the date of receipt of this order. The Investigating Officer can keep the petitioner in his custody for interrogation purpose for a period of 24 hours and if any further detention for Police custody is required, the Investigating Officer can approach the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate, who, on the basis or whatever material produced, shall pass appropriate orders, after completion of the interrogation as directed, the Investigating Officer shall admit the petitioner to bail on the terms above stated. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the investigating agency and to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon.

The office to communicate this order to the Director General of Police to comply the observations in regard to the practice of filing of ''C'' reports in the State.