Section 173 CrPC | Instruct All Investigating Agencies To Communicate Final Report To Complainant: Karnataka High Court To DGP, IG

The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Inspector General and Director General of Police (DG and IGP), to instruct all Investigating Officers of the Investigation Agencies to communicate the final report prepared by them to the first informant, as per Section 173(2)(ii) of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Section 173(2)(ii) obligates investigating officer to communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.

A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan observed,

“It is clear that once the Investigating Officer, investigated the matter, a duty cast upon the Investigating Officer to intimate the first informant about filing of the final report and if it is communicated, then the informant can come to know about the investigation done by the Investigating Officer on his first information for the purpose of taking further course of action and follow up the case.”

The bench gave the direction while allowing a petition filed by one B Prashanth Hedge who had approached the court seeking directions to the Additional CMM Bengaluru to take cognizance against the body corporates i.e State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 403, 408, 409, 447, 381, 420 read with Section 37 of IPC.

Hegde submitted that he had filed a complaint making various allegations against the Bank Officers and Officials of the SBI and Punjab National Bank for misappropriation of fund and cheating the complainant. The matter was referred to the CID police for investigation and the respondent-CID police filed a charge-sheet against officials of the above said two Banks. But the Investigating Officer while filing the final report did not include the Bank as accused.

It was contended that the offence was committed by the corporate bodies namely the State Bank of India and the Punjab National Bank. Therefore, the body corporate is required to be made as accused otherwise, the bank officials cannot be convicted without making the Bank as accused.

Further it was argued that trial court can direct the Police Officer to make further investigation and to make additional charge-sheet and also to take the cognizance against the Corporate body i.e., the Banks.

The prosecution submitted that the Magistrate can take cognizance even during the trial by invoking Section 319 of CrPC or 305 of CrPC.

Findings:

The bench noted that admittedly in this case there is no communication sent by the Investigating Officer to the first informant-complainant regarding submitting the final report. Referring to Section 173(2)(ii) of CrPC, the bench said,

“The Legislature used the word 'shall' to communicate the final report to the first informant. Of course, the manner of communication has to be issued by the State Government, but no such information is sent to the informant by the Investigating Officer.”

So far as action against banks is concerned, the High Court was of the view that trial Court before taking cognizance ought to have applied the mind to direct the Investigating Officer to implead the corporate body as accused and proceed to take cognizance, otherwise, the proceedings would not be sustainable against the officials of the Bank without impleading the Bank as accused.

"Of course, the court can implead the Bank as a co-accused or additional accused by invoking Section 319 of Cr.P.C. or implead the company or a bank as accused under Section 305 of Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, the Police Officer may be directed to file an additional charge-sheet under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. against the corporate body, since the accused persons are vicariously liable for the offence committed by the Bank,” it added.

Thus, the Court directed the trial Court to take cognizance against both the banks in accordance with law or direct the Investigating Officer to file additional charge-sheet by showing the Bank as accused as per Section 173(8) of CrPC by making further investigations.

Case Title: B Prashanth Hegde And State of Karnataka

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.18864 OF 2021

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 169

Date of Order: 13-03-2023

Appearance: Senior Advocate Sandhesh J Chouta for Advocate H N Vasudevan for Petitioner.

SPP Kiran S Javali a/w HCGP R.D. Renukaradhya for Respondent

Click Here To Read/Download Order