Provisions of Criminal Manual regarding issuance of Summary A,B, C by Magistrate

 Summaries of Final Orders

24. All the Courts of Session and the Magistrates are directed to specifically note for guidance ,the following instructions for issue of summaries of final orders. In all cases disposed of by them, they should comply with these instructions without prejudice to their statutory powers and judicial discretion :----

(1) Each Magistrate shall,immediately after disposing of a cognizable case , forward through the police Station from which the case came, to the Superintendent or Sub-Divisional Police Officer concerned ,a summary of a final order in Form E. It should be sent in all cases,whether disposed of by trial or otherwise brought to an end by the death,lunacy or escape of the accused or in any other way what-soever. When a case has been tried by a Magistrate, he will issue the summary. In cases tried by the Court of Session, the Magistrate concerned will forward the required summary after the disposal of the case by that Court or by the High Court. When the order of decision of the Magistrate is modified on appeal or revision ,the Magistrate who sent the original summary will sent again a fresh summary of such modified order or decision in Form F.

Print Page

Whether Magistrate can Issue process against accused if police has submitted C summary?

The father of the patient lodged a complaint in Shaher Kotada Police Station on 15th July, 1986. That complaint came to be registered as CR.No. I 357/86. The Police Inspector, D.C.B. Ahmedabad City, conducted the investigation and ultimately on or about 3rd December, 1987, submitted his final report under Sec. 173 of Cr.P.C. In that final report, the Police Inspector requested the court to grant " C Summary ". That report was placed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 3, Ahmedabad on 8th December, 1987. On 8th December, 1987, a show cause notice was ordered to be issued against the complainant as to why "C Summary " should not be granted as prayed for by the Police Inspector. Thereafter the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 3, Ahmedabad (who will be referred to hereinafter as the "learned Magistrate" ), heard the parties and after perusal of the papers, he by passing an order dated 23rd February, 1989, took the cognizance of an offence punishable under Sec. 304A of I.P.Code against the accused. While passing the said order, the learned Magistrate assigned certain reasons for coming to a conclusion for taking the cognizance against the accused.


 The order which is challenged in this Criminal Revision Application is passed by the learned Magistrate within the bounds of his jurisdiction. He can take the cognizance for an offence against the accused. On reading the papers, it may happen that what conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate is not liked by the accused, but that does not mean that there is no prima facie case to proceed. In this case, after all judicial discretion is exercised by the learned Magistrate. He has assigned the reasons also. He read the papers and then he has come to the conclusion for issuance of process, and therefore, in no case, it can be said that this order is illegal, incorrect or perverse.

Gujarat High Court

Dr. Krishnakant Durgeshbhai Gor vs State Of Gujarat on 4 August, 2000

Equivalent citations: (2000) 3 GLR 692

Print Page

Whether magistrate should pass order pertaining to custody of property while considering C Summary Report?

 In view of distinction as above, it is difficult to swallow the contention of Advocate Shri Bilolikar that earlier order dated 14.2.2002 was an order under Section 457 of CrPC and therefore, the impugned order amounts to review and is illegal. Such an arguments is required to be rejected as devoid of any merits. On the contrary, earlier order being order under Section 451 of CrPC the Magistrate is obliged to suo motu pass the final orders pertaining to custody of the property when he may consider "C" summary for conclusion of the enquiry and investigation. In fact, even the impugned order is an order under Section 451 of CrPC because even in this order, the Magistrate has expected respondent No.1 to execute a bond and also undertaking to produce the vehicle before the Court if required. The final order would follow under section 452 of CrPC on conclusion of trial but in the present case, on conclusion of findings of the learned Magistrate on the report submitted by police for "C" summary.

Bombay High Court

Noorkhan S/O Jafarkhan vs Sk. Jakeer Sk. Akbar on 15 January, 2003

Equivalent citations: 2003 (2) ALD Cri 65, 2003 BomCR Cri

Bench: N Dabholkar

Print Page