The article is written by Shefali Chitkara. This article seeks to elucidate upon one of the most important phases in a case before actually beginning with a criminal trial, i.e., the phase of filing a chargesheet, which is to be filed by the police officials as a result of an investigation.

It has been published by Rachit Garg.

Introduction 

Any criminal case goes through three stages which are investigation, inquiry and trial, after which a judgement is passed based on the evidence, statements of witnesses and other relevant and admissible information. The first phase of the investigation is conducted by police officials and based on that investigation, a final report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) is submitted. 

A final report can be a chargesheet or a closure report, which is generally filed if no offence has come to light through the investigation. However, the magistrate can reorder the investigation or may even go ahead with the case if it deems fit. Moreover, in this article, the author has covered everything about a chargesheet, which is different from a closure report as filed by police officials.

What is a chargesheet 

In India, the term ‘chargesheet’ is mentioned in the procedural law (CrPC) and other special acts dealing with criminal offences, like the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. A document like a chargesheet is necessary in criminal cases where investigation by police officials can only reveal certain events that otherwise could not be made available by the parties before the court; therefore, CrPC under Section 173 mentions the report that has to be filed by the police on completing the investigation and that report is known as a chargesheet. 

A chargesheet is a final report that is filed by the investigating officer or police officials under Section 173 CrPC after the completion of the investigation in a cognizable or non-cognizable case. A chargesheet has been defined as “a final report of the police officer under Section 173(2) of the CrPC” in one of the famous cases of K. Veeraswami v. Union of India & Others (1991). 

The provision also states the contents of the chargesheet and the manner in which it needs to be filed. Further, there are various other provisions in the Act mentioning the chargesheet or a final report. 

Section 173- Report of police officer on completion of investigation

Every investigation under Chapter XII shall be completed without any unnecessary delay.

Sub-section 1 states that for the offences under Sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB and 376E, the investigation has to be completed within two months from the date on which information was recorded by the officer in charge in the police station. 

Sub-section 2, clause (i), states that as soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating-

a. The names of the parties;

b. The nature of the information;

c. The names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;

d. Whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;

e. Whether the accused has been arrested;

f. Whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, weather with or without sureties;

g. Whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170;

h. Whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under the offences mentioned in sub-section 1.

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

Benefits of a chargesheet

Chargesheet, being a very relevant report that initiates criminal proceedings against an accused, serves various benefits, helping courts arrive at a decision:

1. It contains the statements of the accused and all other witnesses.
2. Marks the beginning of a criminal trial.
3. Charges on which courts have to proceed against the accused are mentioned.
4. It is useful for the accused in obtaining bail as the offences are mentioned clearly.

Contents of the chargesheet

A chargesheet must contain following information as per Section 173(2)(i) of the CrPC-

• The names of the parties.
• Nature of the information.
• Names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the events.
• About the offence that appears to have been committed and the person by whom it has been committed.
• Information regarding the arrest of the accused, his/their release with or without sureties and whether he has been forwarded into custody under Section 170. 

Further, this report by the investigating officer should be in the form prescribed by the state government. The officer in charge should also communicate the action taken by him to the person who gave the first information regarding the offence as per clause (ii) of Section 173(2).

Is a chargesheet filed after investigation

A chargesheet can be filed only after the completion of an investigation by the concerned police officials, since the contents of the chargesheet cannot be filled out without investigating the case. As clearly laid down in the case of Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI (2007), a chargesheet is a final report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC so that the court can decide on taking cognizance. It has to be filed only after the investigation is complete, not while the same is ongoing.

Also, in Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre v. State of Maharashtra, the court observed that if a chargesheet is filed without completing the investigation, then the same will amount to an incomplete chargesheet and will not be considered a final report and the magistrate will not be able to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC on the same.

Only after filing a chargesheet on completion of the investigation will the power to conduct a subsequent investigation and file a supplementary chargesheet under Section 173(8) emerge.

Need to quash a chargesheet

The law is only meant to punish guilty individuals. The present scenario is quite different, as people, including police officers, try to harass accused persons by letting police file false FIRs and chargesheets against them. Courts have a duty to come against the same and therefore, provisions like the quashing of the chargesheet are made. 

Even if the FIR or chargesheet does not disclose the commission of any offence, it deserves to be quashed and the same can be done by the High Court through the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. 

In the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, it was noted that if a chargesheet is filed under Section 307 IPC and the same is challenged before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC on the ground that the parties have compromised in the matter, the court may quash the chargesheet after examining certain things like the nature of injuries sustained, the weapons used, etc.

Difference between charge and a chargesheet under CrPC

If a cognizable offence has been committed, then the police officer is bound to conduct an investigation and file a final report on the same, which is known as a chargesheet, on the basis of which the magistrate will take cognizance. However, a charge is framed by the magistrate against the accused for which he is tried. A charge is framed for every offence alleged to have been committed by the accused under Chapter XVII of the CrPC after the filing of the final report and the commencement of proceedings before the magistrate.

Is filing a chargesheet compulsory

Filing of a chargesheet in case a cognizable offence is said to be committed by the accused is mandatory on the part of police officials, either by themselves or on the orders of the court, after filing an FIR. However, the same is not compulsory in cases where a non-cognizable offence has been committed unless the court orders an investigation.

Supplementary chargesheet

A supplementary chargesheet is an additional chargesheet that can be filed on the directions of the court if the case discloses new evidence that could be discovered during further investigation. Section 173(8) of the CrPC provides for the same and the right of police to conduct further investigation in a case and file a supplementary report before the magistrate. The same provisions as mentioned under sub-sections (2) to (6) of Section 173 will be applicable to the supplementary report. 

In the case of Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2009), the court has clearly stated that further investigation will be in continuation of the earlier investigation and cannot be regarded as a fresh investigation. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Surender v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018), has held that there should be a reason for further investigation and a supplementary chargesheet must indicate new or novel evidence.

Moreover, in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Anr. (1985), the court observed that even after filing the chargesheet, if the court is not satisfied, the Magistrate may order further investigation.

Chargesheet in cognizable and non-cognizable offences

In a cognizable case, the police officials have the power to arrest a person without a warrant and start an investigation themselves but in a non-cognizable case, the police officials can arrest only after a warrant from the magistrate and thus cannot conduct an investigation and file a chargesheet on their own until the magistrate orders them to do so, unlike in cognizable cases. Recently, in the case of Biju V.G. v. State of Kerala (2020) before the Kerala High Court, it was reiterated that if there are non-cognizable as well as cognizable offence/offences in a case, the police can conduct the investigation and file a chargesheet before the magistrate for all the offences under Section 155(4) of CrPC.

Chargesheet and the closure report

A final report has to be filed by the investigating officers before the magistrate under Section 173 CrPC, which can be in the form of a chargesheet or a closure report. A chargesheet is filed once it is revealed during the investigation that an offence has been committed by the accused, whereas a closure report is filed when police find that no offence has been committed and no evidence can be traced in the given case.

Cognizance and chargesheet

After the filing of a chargesheet by the police officials, it is the duty of the court to decide whether or not to take cognizance of the case by applying the judicial mind. Cognizance is of the offence and not the offender, as can be noticed under Section 190 CrPC. It is based on the opinion of the court, which can be taken only after a chargesheet is filed before the court. 

What happens when a witness is not named in the chargesheet

It is not necessary or a requirement of law to mention the names of all witnesses in the FIR or in statements u/s 161 of the CrPC. Such witnesses can also be examined by the prosecution with the permission of the court. Not mentioning the name of any witness in the FIR or chargesheet would not mean rejection of evidence of any witness. The same has been laid down in the case of Prabhu Dayal v. State of Rajasthan (2018).

Evidentiary value of a chargesheet

It is a settled principle of law that an FIR under Section 154 CrPC is not a substantive piece of evidence. Similarly, a chargesheet is also not a substantive piece of evidence, as both are filed by the police officials and all that is stated in both of them is not proved till the stage but only the statements given outside the court of law and not before the magistrate. However, a chargesheet can be called the collective opinion of the investigating officers.

When can a chargesheet be filed

It is settled law that in case of the non-filing of a chargesheet by the police officials within a prescribed time limit, as has been mentioned below, an accused is entitled to default bail under Section 167 of the CrPC. Therefore, as a duty prescribed under CrPC, an investigating officer is bound to file a chargesheet after the completion of an investigation in a particular case before the authorised magistrate. 

Recently, a bench comprising Justices Krishna Murari and CT Ravi Kumar in the case of Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India (2023) remarked that a chargesheet or a prosecution complaint cannot be filed by an investigation agency without completing the investigation in a given case. Generally, this was done so as to deprive an arrested accused of his right to bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. Thus, it can be said that police can file a chargesheet after the investigation in a particular case; if the offence is cognizable, then it can be filed automatically after completing the investigation and in cases of non-cognizable offences, the same can be filed only on directions from the magistrate.

Evidence is deficient

According to Section 169 CrPC, if after an investigation, it appears to the police officials that there is no sufficient evidence so as to forward the accused to the magistrate, he may release him on bond with or without sureties. 

However, even after the release of the accused on bond, if the magistrate deems it fit, he may direct the investigation to start again and submit a report under Section 173 of the CrPC. 

Evidence is sufficient

According to Section 170 CrPC, if it appears to the police officials that there is sufficient evidence against the accused, then they can send the accused under custody to the magistrate. The magistrate may take security for his appearance before him if the offence is bailable and the accused is able to give security. The officer shall also send any weapon or article to the magistrate, along with all the documents on which the prosecution relies and the statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, along with the report as per Section 173(5).

Time limit for filing a chargesheet

In Section 173(1) CrPC, it is clearly mentioned that a chargesheet has to be filed on completion of the investigation, which has to be completed without any unnecessary delay. In the case of HC Khurana v. Delhi Development Authority (2001), the High Court of Delhi quashed the chargesheet and inquiry proceedings against the petitioner, holding that no useful purpose would be served for proceeding against the petitioner after such a long delay, particularly when the petitioner has retired from service, as the chargesheet was issued on November 27, 1997, and related to the period between 1983 and 1987.

Further, Section 173(1A) states that the investigation for certain sexual offences under Sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB or 376E of the IPC has to be completed within two months from the date on which information was recorded by the police officer. 

Recently, the Supreme Court in Fakhrey Alam v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), said that the provision for default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is not merely a statutory right but a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, a strict time limit, as mentioned under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, has to be followed in the filing of the chargesheet by the police officials before the magistrate. 

Relaxation in the time limit

According to Section 167(2) of the CrPC, a chargesheet has to be filed within 60 days from the date of remand of the accused and the same can be extended to 90 days for certain offences, i.e., it must be filed within 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be.

However, the time limit for filing a chargesheet has been relaxed in certain cases, like in the NDPS Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2021) has scrutinised Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act and held that the investigation has to be completed within 180 days instead of 90 days, which may be extended to 1 year by providing special reasons. Section 36A of the Act states that offences under the Act that are punishable with imprisonment for more than three years are triable only by special courts. 

Consequences when chargesheet is not filed within the time limit

When the chargesheet is not filed within the time limit as mentioned under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, the accused is entitled to default bail on an application for the same. In Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (2017), where the accused was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it was argued by the Council of the State that he could be given maximum imprisonment for up to 10 years and that the date for applying for default bail would commence on the expiry of 90 days. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the accused had satisfied all the requirements of the bail and was in custody for more than 60 days and no chargesheet had been filed; therefore, he was entitled to be released on bail.

The Court further noted that Section 167(2)(a)(i) applies in cases where the offence is punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for not less than 10 years. The accused will be released if the chargesheet is not filed within 90 days. Section 167(2)(a)(ii) applies in cases where the offence is punishable with imprisonment of less than 10 years. The accused will be given default bail if a chargesheet is not filed within 60 days.

The right to default bail is lost once the chargesheet is filed within 60 or 90 days and the court will not itself grant bail to the accused in this case unless an application in this behalf is filed by the accused.

Can a chargesheet be quashed

A chargesheet like an FIR may be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC by exercising its inherent powers. The inherent authority is exercised by the High Court to prevent the misuse of the process of law and uphold the interests of justice. The same could be done on the following grounds:

1. When there is no merit in the FIR as filed against the accused or when allegations do not establish commission of an offence.
2. When the court is of the view that it contains false accusations against the accused.
3. When a compromise was reached between the parties only in exceptional cases.

In the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2018), the Supreme Court held that while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the court can quash the FIR even if the chargesheet has been filed since the offence was not made out in this case.

How to issue a chargesheet against a government official

Government officials who are accused of any offence are subject to disciplinary proceedings. Their service regulations and standing orders govern the same since they cannot be left unpunished and, thus, are subjected to fair and impartial proceedings against them. Certain protection to the members of the civil service of the Union or State is given under Article 311 of the Indian Constitution, which talks about dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or State. 

According to it, an inquiry has to be conducted if such a member is charged with any offence, and he must be given the opportunity of being heard. Further, the member cannot be removed by an authority subordinate to the one who appointed him. 

Remedies available when a chargesheet is filed without arrest

Wherever the police feel that the arrest of an accused is not required, they can complete the investigation and file a chargesheet even without arresting the accused. As per Section 170 CrPC, it is not necessary to arrest the accused for submitting the report if there is reason to believe that the accused will neither abscond nor disobey the summons by the court. The Delhi High Court has clearly laid down in the case of Court on its own motion v. CBI (2004) that an accused should be arrested only in utmost necessity where the investigation cannot be done without arresting him.

Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Siddharth v. State of UP (2021), held that there is no need for an accused to be arrested in every case while submitting a chargesheet. If a person has not been arrested during the investigation and if he fears his arrest upon appearance before the court, then in such a scenario, the following remedies are available to the accused person:

1. To file for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC.
2. To furnish bonds under Section 88 of CrPC.
3. To file for an exemption from personal appearance before the court under Section 205 of CrPC.
4. To file for regular bail before the magistrate under Section 437 and 439 CrPC.

If a person has not been arrested during the investigation and has also co-operated during the investigation, the guidelines for bail concerning such accused persons have been highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2023). The court has divided the offences into four different categories:

• The first category is that of offences that are punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less, wherein the bail application can be decided by the court upon the appearance of the accused without taking him into custody. An interim bail should be granted by the court in such a case until the matter of regular bail is pending. 
• The second category comprises those offences that are punishable by a death sentence, imprisonment for life or more than 7 years, and in this case, the bail application has to be decided on merits upon the appearance of the accused. 
• The third category is for the offences punishable under Special Acts and the general principles concerning delay would apply in these cases. 
• Whereas the fourth category deals with economic offences not covered under special acts. Under this category, the court has to look at the severity of the punishment and the seriousness of the charge. Bail cannot be denied automatically for these offences.

Difference between FIR and chargesheet

An FIR is the first information recorded by the police officials that is received by them from any person regarding a cognizable offence, whereas a chargesheet is prepared by the police after completing the investigation in that case. The provisions regarding the recording of the first information have been mentioned under Section 154 of the CrPC and a chargesheet is given under Section 173 of the CrPC. A chargesheet mentions the guilt of the accused based on the evidence collected during an investigation, whereas an FIR is not a decision on a person’s guilt. 

It is the duty of the police officials to record an FIR; if the same is refused, a complaint can be sent to the Superintendent of Police or to the magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR and start the investigation. If police are unable to collect sufficient evidence in a case, they can also file a closure report as a final report or an untraced report before the magistrate. 

An FIR is filed by the victim of the crime in the police station, whereas the chargesheet is filed by the investigating officer of the case in court. Further, an FIR is filed for the purpose of investigation in the case and the chargesheet is filed to start with a trial. Furthermore, an FIR is a public document that can be made available to the public at large while required by any member of the general public, whereas a chargesheet is not a public document, as has been discussed in brief below.

S. No.	Basis of differentiation	FIR	Chargesheet
	Meaning	An FIR is the first information recorded by the police officials, which is received by it from any person regarding a cognizable offence.	A chargesheet is prepared by the police after completing the investigation of a particular case.
	Cause	An FIR is lodged when an offence has been committed.	A chargesheet is made after an FIR has been registered or filed in a particular case.
	Section	Section 154 CrPC	Section 173 CrPC
	Filed by whom	Any person or a victim of the crime.	Investigating officer
	Purpose	FIR is not a decision on a person’s guilt. It only mentions the first information that is received regarding an offence.	A chargesheet mentions the guilt of the accused based on the evidence collected during an investigation.
	Public document	Yes, it is a public document.	No, it is not a public document.
	Phase	The FIR is the first phase of the investigation.	A chargesheet is filed by the police officials after the investigation.
	Where is it filed	An FIR is filed at the police station.	A chargesheet is filed with the court.

Why is a chargesheet not a public document

Recently, a petition was filed before the Supreme Court in the case of Saurav Das v. Union of India (2023) to upload the chargesheet on the police websites or websites of the State Governments so as to make it accessible to the public. But a bench composed of Justices CT Ravikumar and MR Shah turned it down, saying that a chargesheet filed by police officials is not a public document under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and thus cannot be revealed to the public at large under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Notably, Section 74 defines public documents and Section 75 mentions private documents as those that are not covered under Section 74. 

In the case of Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court has directed that FIRs be published on the website within 24 hours to make them accessible to the public, except in cases where the offences are sensitive in nature but the judgement nowhere mentions the publication of chargesheet, which is considered to be the private document for a particular case, covering all the statements of the parties and other evidence. 

Important case laws

Ram Lal Narang v. State, Delhi Administration (1979)

Facts of the case

In the case of Ram Lal Narang v. State, Delhi Administration (1979), two pillars were stolen from Suraj Kund Temple for which three different FIRs were filed. The main contention of the accused regarding these different FIRs was that the subject matter of the two already filed FIRs and chargesheets was the same, because of which there was an implied bar to further investigation in the present case. 

Issues raised

1. Can the investigating officials conduct further investigation even after filing the chargesheet as a final report in a particular case under Section 173 CrPC and after the taking of cognizance by the court?
2. Whether prior permission from the court is required to conduct further investigation?

Judgement of the case

The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that there is no bar on the police officials to conduct further investigation even after cognizance has been taken by the magistrate and in order to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of CrPC. Further, it was held that the police may or may not seek the permission of the court and mere information is sufficient for the same. 

J. Jayalalitha v. State (2002)

Facts of the case

In the case of J. Jayalalitha v. State (2002), the petitioners were charged with offences under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 

One of the petitioners has held pecuniary resources outside the country on behalf of the other petitioner and a case was filed against them for illegally doing so. The main problem faced by the petitioners during the investigation was that they were aggrieved by the breach of undertaking in the letters of request under Section 166A of the CrPC which was done during further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.

Issue raised

The question herein was regarding the procedure to be followed in case of further investigation and after the same pursuant to the letters of request under Section 166A CrPC and its legality thereof.  

Judgement of the case

The Madras High Court has made it clear that the provisions of Sections 173(2) to 173(6) will be applicable in further investigation as well under Section 173(8) CrPC. 

Patiram v. State of Maharashtra (2003)

Facts of the case

In the case of Patiram v. State of Maharashtra (2003), the appellant has challenged the conviction by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 302 IPC. It was contended that during the investigation, the statements of the witnesses were not recorded under Section 161 CrPC and two of the witnesses were not produced before the magistrate, whose statements were recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The statements under Section 164 were sealed and were not made available to the defence to prove the omissions and contradictions. 

Issue raised

One of the issues in this case relating to our topic is whether the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC that have not been provided to the defence are correct under the law.

Judgement of the case

In this case, the court stated that the statement of the accused recorded by the magistrate under Section 164 CrPC must be mentioned in the chargesheet so as to be available for the defence.

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019)

Facts of the case

In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019), an FIR and a chargesheet have been filed naming the respondent for an offence under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC. The respondents have filed an appeal before the High Court for quashing the chargesheet because there was a compromise between the parties and the complainant was also ready to take back the case. The Hon’ble High Court quashed the proceedings and acquitted the respondents. Therefore, an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the quashing orders of the High Court.

Issue raised

Does the High Court have the power to quash a chargesheet under Section 482 of CrPC? And can a chargesheet be quashed through the inherent powers of the High Court in case a compromise has been reached between the parties?

Judgement of the case

The Apex Court highlighted the power of the High Courts under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the chargesheet. Through this case, it is clear that if a chargesheet is submitted for an offence under Section 307 of the IPC by police officials and the same is challenged on the ground that parties have come to a compromise, it can be quashed by the High Court. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that the antecedents of the accused have to be considered before quashing the proceedings, chargesheet or FIR for non-compoundable offences that are private in nature.

Saurav Das v. Union of India (2023)

Facts of the case

In the case of Saurav Das v. Union of India (2023), a plea was filed by Saurav Das, an RTI activist and independent journalist, to publish chargesheets filed by the police, the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate on government websites and to make them available in the public domain. According to them, states should enable free access to the chargesheet and final reports to the public as per Section 173 of the CrPC.

Issue raised 

The major issue in this case was whether a chargesheet could be published and made available to the public at large, just like an FIR. 

Judgement of the case 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that chargesheets cannot be published and cannot be made available and accessible for the public at large, as these are not public documents.

Conclusion

A chargesheet is considered to be the most important and significant document that helps courts decide on the acquittal or conviction of the accused. Though it is not substantive evidence to decide the same, it is considered by the courts to arrive at a decision. We can now say that a chargesheet is called an outcome of the investigation based on which a trial or further inquiry, if needed, is initiated. 

A chargesheet not being a public document is said to be relevant to a particular case as it aids the magistrate in drawing a conclusion and is significant to a case, covering all the important evidence, including the statements of the witnesses. We can conclude by saying that the same is very different from an FIR and is filed by the police officials before the concerned magistrate on the basis of the first information received by it in the form of an FIR.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Can a chargesheet be amended?

No, a chargesheet once filed cannot be cancelled or amended by the police but a supplementary chargesheet can be filed and reinvestigation can also be done on the orders of the court.

Can a chargesheet be filed for non-cognizable offences?

Yes, a chargesheet can be filed for non-cognizable cases on the orders of the court. In such cases, if the investigation is ordered to be done by the court, then a chargesheet has to be filed.

Is the chargesheet a final report under Section 173 of CrPC?

Yes, Section 173 talks about the final report that needs to be submitted by the police officials after the completion of the investigation and the same can be in the form of a chargesheet or a closure report.

What is the difference between a closure report and a chargesheet?

A chargesheet is filed once it is revealed during the investigation that an offence has been committed by the accused, whereas a closure report is filed when police find that no offence has been committed and no evidence can be traced in the given case. Both are filed as a final report by the police officials after an investigation.

Can a court order a further investigation or go ahead in a case if a closure report has been filed?

Yes, it is at the discretion of the court to go ahead in a given case or order for reinvestigation even after filing a closure report.

What is covered in the chargesheet?

A chargesheet is a report giving a brief about the complaint and a list of all the persons who are charge-sheeted and those who are not. It also includes the statements of all the accused persons and the complainant, i.e., both parties involved in a given case. 

Why is a chargesheet not a public document?

A chargesheet filed by police officials is not a public document under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and thus cannot be revealed to the public at large under the Right to Information Act, 2005, since it is considered to be a private document for a particular case covering all the statements of the parties and other evidence.   

Is it compulsory to file a chargesheet?

Yes, it is compulsory to file a chargesheet in cognizable cases after conducting an investigation but not in non-cognizable cases except on the orders of the court.

What is the consequence of not filing a chargesheet within the time limit?

The non-filing of the chargesheet within 60 or 90 days as per Section 167(2) will give the accused a right to default bail.

Can a chargesheet be quashed?

Yes, a chargesheet can be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC.

What is the basis of the chargesheet?

A chargesheet is filed after the completion of an investigation by police officials and the content of the chargesheet is based only on that investigation.

References

• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/court-takes-cognisance-of-additional-ed-chargesheet/articleshow/100631628.cms?from=mdr.
• https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/section-173-crpc-both-chargesheet-and-supplementary-chargesheet-should-be-considered-to-decide-if-accused-committed-crime-supreme-court.
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/crime/1324446/remedies-when-chargesheet-is-filed-without-arrest 
• https://lawnotes.co/tag/define-charge-sheet/
• https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/chargesheet-not-a-public-document 
• https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/all-about-chargesheet-15700.asp 

---

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.