Chargesheet Must Show the Evidence and Each Accused's Role, Not Just Repeat the FIR: Supreme Court

Three appeals from Uttar Pradesh raised the contents of chargesheets (para 2). In the first, the complainant alleged that the appellants took Rs. 1 crore as earnest money for a plot, sold it to others and did not refund it; the chargesheet under Sections 406 and 506 IPC narrated the complaint and declared the offences proved (paras 34-35). In the second, a Magistrate ordered registration of an FIR on a complaint about earnest money after the police had not registered one (paras 41, 43). In the third, a Magistrate summoned Manager Singh on a chargesheet and issued non-bailable warrants against him (paras 45-46).

A chargesheet is complete when it refers to material and evidence sufficient to take cognisance and for the trial; further evidence under Section 173(8) adds to a complete chargesheet and cannot make up for a deficient one (para 13). The chargesheet is the only investigative document before the court when it takes cognisance, issues summons and frames the charge (para 20). Explaining K. Veeraswami, the Court said a chargesheet need not elaborately evaluate the evidence, but it must still disclose the facts (para 23). It is not a comprehensive thesis of the prosecution case, yet must reflect a thorough investigation (para 24). In case of doubt, the Magistrate may call for better particulars, order further investigation or record statements under Section 202 (para 29). On the facts, a normal sale transaction is not entrustment, and no threat made with intent to cause alarm was shown (paras 36, 39). Magistrates must be cautious in telling civil wrongs from criminal ones, and non-bailable warrants cannot be issued routinely (paras 44, 46). Exemption from personal appearance is not confined to the stage after bail (para 47).