State Represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai vs. N.S. Gnaneswaran, Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 2008, Decided on 9th January, 2013
The question was whether giving
the copy of the FIR to the informant is mandatory and if not what is the
prejudice caused to the respondent/accused as the informant has not raised the
grievance of non-supply of the copy of the FIR nor it has been the case of the
respondent that he sought the copy of the FIR and was not given.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“The issue also requires to be examined on
the touchstone of doctrine of prejudice. Thus, unless in a given situation, the
aggrieved makes out a case of prejudice or injustice, some infraction of law
would not vitiate the order/enqury/result. In judging a question of prejudice,
the court must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not to
technicalities”. [Para 7]
“In the instant case, learned counsel for the
respondent is not able to show any prejudice caused to him for not supplying
the copy of the FIR to the informant”.[Para 9]
“..the provisions of Section 154(2) are
merely directory and not mandatory as it prescribes only a duty to give the
copy of the FIR”. [Para 17]
“..non compliance of the mandatory provisions
under Section 154, Cr.P.C. if the case is registered on the basis of the
information received suo-motu after specifying that the information reveals
prima facie cognizable offence against the respondent herein and found that the
matter is fit for investigation to be taken by the appellant herein, in not
following the provisions of Section 154 does not vitiate the registration of
FIR and further proceedings in the matter of registration”. [Para 23]
The Court also noted following
case law:
Dahari &
Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 10 SCC 256, this Court considered the prejudice
in a trial where charges had not properly been taken care of. In the said case
the trial commenced against five accused under Section 302 read with Section
149 IPC and they stood convicted by the Sessions Court. The High Court though acquitted
3 persons but for the remaining accused conviction was maintained under Section
302 read with Section 149 IPC. This Court held that in such a factual
situation, the High Court could most certainly has convicted the appellant
under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and as no prejudice has been shown
to have been caused to them, the question of interference could not arise.
Other case laws noted by the
Court:
Jankinath Sarangi v. State of
Orissa, (1969) 3 SCC 392;
State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal
& Anr., AIR 1998 SC 3038;
State of A.P. v. Thakkidiram
Reddy & Ors., (1998) 6 SCC 554;
Debotosh Pal Choudhury v. Punjab
National Bank & Ors., (2002) 8 SCC 68
To see full text follow the link: