Sharif Ahmad & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh Home DepartmentSecretary (2024)

CASE COMMENT: Sharif Ahmad & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Home Department Secretary

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: May 1, 2024

PETITIONER: Sharif Ahmad & Another

RESPONDENT: Uttar Pradesh and Home Department Secretary

BENCH: Ho’nble MR. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Hon’ble MR. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

Background

The case of Sharif Ahmed & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another revolves around two residents of Uttar Pradesh who were named in a criminal case. Following this, the police filed a chargesheet under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). However, this chargesheet lacked considerable amount of evidence as there were no key witness statements, no supportive materials and nothing concrete that could actually prove them guilty. Despite this the magistrate decided to take legal proceedings of the case. A few days later the police filed a supplementary chargesheet under Section 173(8) CrPC for conducting further investigation by adding more materials to strengthen the weak case. But this new chargesheet only raised questions about whether chargesheets are filed without sufficient evidence and details or does it even meet the legal requirements. Then, the magistrate based on this chargesheet issued summons and non-bailable warrants against the appellants. Sharif and another approached the High Court. However, High Court dismissed their plea so they approached to the Supreme Court arguing that it was inappropriate for the system to initiate prosecution without sufficient evidence and restrain their freedom without any explanation. The Supreme Court emphasized that a chargesheet must include detailed information beyond merely producing the FIR based on their past judgement[1]. 

Issues Raised

1. Whether the chargesheets filed by the police adequately mentioned the facts constituting the offenses as required by law, or merely repeated the allegations from the First Information Report (FIR) without providing substantive evidence to be relied upon.
2. Does the magistrate issuing non-bailable warrants in the absence of required sufficient materials violate the formal process of fairness and individual liberty?
3. Whether filing a supplementary chargesheet under Section 173(8) corrects the fundamental defects of the first, original chargesheet.
4. Should criminal proceedings against the appellants be taken even without sufficient evidence provided by the police or State?

Contentions

Contentions by the Petitioners:

• The pleaders contested that the chargesheet under Section 173(2) CrPC did not contain enough details to justify the notice as they lacked roles of the accused in the crime and material for evidence.
• The primary chargesheet was not complete and very deficient which cannot be validated by the supplementary chargesheet under Section 173(8)
• The magistrate issuing non-bailable warrants regularly violated their individual liberty as it was despotic.
• The procedural safeguards for exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 were not complied with.
• The petitioners relied on Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration to prove their claims.

Respondents contented:

• The State argued that the purpose of supplementary chargesheet was served as it fixed the inefficiency in the primary chargesheet. There was enough evidence to proceed with the trial of the accused.
• Non-bailable warrants were issued to ensure the presence of the indicted under legal guidelines.
• On the basis of both the chargesheets, cognizance can be taken as there was sufficient information provided for notice.
• Judicial discretion by magistrate to summon and issue warrants must be respected unless egregiously arbitrary.

Rationale

The Supreme Court granted leave to hear the appeals. The Court in its decision held that it is mandatory for chargesheets to provide material evidences, adequate proof of the actions of the accused in the said crime enabling the magistrates to take cognizance[2]. A chargesheet filed under Section 173(2) must include the following details[3]:

• Names of all the parties those who are involved;
• Nature of the information;
• Names of the persons who know the details of the case;
• If any offense has been committed then by whom and the role of the accused must be written;
• If the accused has already been arrested;
• If the accused has been released on his personal bond with or without sureties;
• If the accused has been forwarded to the magistrate;
• If any specific offense is committed under Section 376, 376 A, 376 AD and so on under Indian Penal Code then it must be checked whether the medical report of the victim has been attached. The officer in charge of the concerned police station should also communicate the action taken by him to the person who gave them the information first.

The chargesheet must clearly and separately mention the role of the accused even if more than one person is accused[4].  Supplementary chargesheets can add additional information under Section 173(8) CrPC[5] however; it cannot rectify fundamental loopholes of the primary chargesheet. One cannot make up details to strengthen a weak case. A complete chargesheet is the one in which the case is not entirely dependent on further evidence and the trial can proceed on the basis of evidence and material placed on record with the chargesheet. This is a realistic balance to protect the innocent from harassment due to delay as well as long imprisonment and still not cut down the right of the prosecution to provide further evidence in support of the charges. However, the chargesheet does not need to describe and evaluate the evidence as the process of evaluation is a matter of trial. This does not mean that the chargesheet should not refer to the facts according to the requirements of Section 173(2)[6]. Hence, supplementary chargesheets should never be misused for compensating for insufficient primary chargesheets.

The Supreme Court also warned about issuing non-bailable warrants frequently on a routine basis, reminding the importance of balancing personal liberty with public interest[7]. Non-bailable warrants should be issued exceptionally in cases with serious offenses only.

The Court emphasized that the magistrates have the power to independently evaluate the sufficiency of a chargesheet, irrespective of the conclusions drawn by investigating officers[8]. For summoning and issuing non-bailable warrants, a systematic, judicial evaluation of facts must be followed.  If the chargesheet doesn’t meet any of the fundamental criterias under Section 173(2) CrPC then the chargesheet shall be considered invalid and the warrant can be legally nullified. Every procedure of a criminal case must be just and fair.

The magistrate needs to be careful when examining whether a case is civil or criminal[9]. Any civil case must not be tried to settle by using the fear of criminal prosecution. The highest apex Court even warned that costs can be imposed on the State of Uttar Pradesh if this continues further.[10]

If after investigation, the officer does not find any adequate or reasonable grounds of evidence for forwarding an accused to the magistrate, the officer in charge must clearly mention it in the report about agreeing to Section 169 CrPC.[11]

Defects of Law

This case brought in light some really important loopholes in the proceedings of criminal law:

• A chargesheet is a final report of the police officer under Section 173(2) of CrPC where the officer gives an opinion on whether crimes have been committed, to what extent and the materials that prove the accusations. However, under Section 173(2) the laws do not specify clearly how much material is considered sufficient for allowing the magistrate to acknowledge the offense.
• The Court although criticized the magistrates frequently issuing non-bailable warrants but failed to state some specific guidelines on how the magistrates should examine the chargesheets before issuing a warrant or arresting the accused.
• The Supreme Court struck down the report due to lack of information but, it did not mention or suggest any procedure for investigating the officers in charge of investigation for not collecting enough materials and submitting incomplete or deficient chargesheets.
• This case could have been a great opportunity for the Supreme Court to educate how to properly use Section 173(2) and Section 173(8) CrPC but it did not give any elaborative explanation.

Inference

The case serves as a landmark judgement for ensuring the freedom of an individual and the morality of criminal proceedings in India. The Supreme Court clearly declares that filing a weak chargesheet which is deficient of adequate information will not simply lead to a criminal prosecution against anyone even if the person is accused. There must be sufficient material evidence since the beginning of investigation while filing for the original chargesheet to summon someone to court or issue a warrant against them. The Court also made it clear that opting for a supplementary chargesheet can never fix the broken, incomplete primary chargesheet which already shows lack of investigation. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution safeguards and guarantees personal liberty of all its citizen[12] which must not be taken lightly by anyone be it police in charge or the magistrate. The system can never force people to face long trials and go through unnecessary mental, physical and emotional burden because of their faulty preparation.

Thus, the judgement once again proves that the highest court of appeal, The Supreme Court exists to protect the personal liberty and rights of the people along with maintaining the structure of criminal procedures.

Reference(S):

[1] Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand 2024 INSC 197

[2] CASE MINE, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/enhancing-chargesheet-compliance-under-section-173(2)-cr.p.c.:-insights-from-sharif-ahmad-v.-the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-home-department-secretary-(2024-insc-363)/view , last visited June 23, 2025

[3]  LAWXPERTS MV INDIA, https://www.lawxpertsmv.com/post/detailed-notes-on-section-173-crpc-police-report-on-completion-of-investigation, last visited on June 23, 2025

[4] Notice, Delhi Police, July 13, 2024, https://training.delhipolice.gov.in/PDF/PublicData/NOTICE_20240713145751771.pdf

[5]  173(8), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (India)

[6] § 173(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (India)

[7] ET LEGALWORLD, https://legal.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/litigation/non-bailable-warrants-cannot-be-issued-in-a-routine-manner-sc/109782596 , last visited June 23, 2025

[8] CASE MINE, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/enhancing-chargesheet-compliance-under-section-173(2)-cr.p.c.:-insights-from-sharif-ahmad-v.-the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-home-department-secretary-(2024-insc-363)/view  , last visited June 23, 2025

[9] Sharif Ahmed & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh Home Department Secretary, 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 273 (India)

[10] Upasana Sarkar, All About Section 173 CrPC, iPLEADERS BLOG, (Nov. 26, 2023,)  https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-about-section-173-crpc/

[11] Notice, Delhi Police, July 13, 2024, https://training.delhipolice.gov.in/PDF/PublicData/NOTICE_20240713145751771.pdf

[12] INDIA CONST. art. 21.