"Law doesn't require IO to give chargesheet copy to complainant first:" Karnataka High Court dismisses PIL with ₹50k costs

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition praying that in criminal cases, a copy of the chargesheet should be provided to the complainant/informant before it is submitted to the concerned court [Amar Correa v. State of Karnataka and Ors].A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice SR Krishna Kumar termed the PIL 'misconceived', and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the lawyer, who appeared in-person, for wasting the Court's time. "It is not the requirement of law that the investigating officer shall first handover the copy of the police report to the complainant/informant and only thereafter, submit it to the competent court. The petitioner appearing in person has not been able to show any material on record to establish that the complainant/informant has been denied the copy of the police report when the said complainant/informant has approached the Court for that purpose," the Court said..The petitioner-lawyer Amar Correa had approached the High Court citing the requirement under Section 173 (report of police officer on completion of investigation) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)..Section 173 of the CrPC requires the Investigating Officer to communicate the action taken by them regarding the information about a cognisable offence. Under the Section, they should submit the police report before a competent court and along with it, submit an additional copy that is to be handed to the complainant or informant. It is the responsibility of the complainant to take the additional copy of the police report from the court, the Bench in the instant case noted. .The petitioner in this case did not show any material to establish that a complainant was denied a copy of the police report when they approached a court for that purpose, the Bench stated. .It was directed that the costs imposed be deposited within one month before the State Legal Services Authority, failing which it would be recovered as arrears of revenue. .Advocate Amar Correa was the petitioner in person, and Additional General Advocate HR Showri represented the State. .[Read Order]