Case title
Deepak Yadav & Anr Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr
Date of Order
23rd September, 2025
Bench
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Parties
Appellants – Deepak Yadav & Another
Respondents – State of Uttar Pradesh & Another
Important Provisions
The important provisions in this case were :
- Section 173(2) of CrPC – This provision deals with filing of chargesheet by police.
- Section 173(8) of CrPC – Deals with supplementary investigation.
- Section 190 of CrPC – This section is about the cognizance of offences by the Magistrates.
Overview
The Police had filed a chargesheet against the accused for some offences. Later on, a private witness submitted an affidavit that alleged additional offences. The Trial Court took cognizance of those extra offences based only on the affidavit, which was then challenged before the Supreme Court.
Issues Raised
- Can a Trial Court take cognizance of offences which are not mentioned in the chargesheet ,solely on the basis of a private affidavit?
- What is the correct procedure for the introduction of additional offences after the chargesheet has been filed?
Arguments Advanced By The Appellant
- First argument advanced by the appellant was that the Trial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by taking on cognizance beyond the given scope of the chargesheet.
- They also stated that cognizance based on a private affidavit is going to undermine the role of police in the investigation.
- Another argument that they forwarded was that the CrPC mandates that additional offences need to be brought up only through the means of a supplementary chargesheet.
Arguments Advanced By The Respondent
- The respondents argued that the affidavit had raised credible allegations which should not be ignored.
- Their argument was also that the Trial courts have wide powers to make sure that justice is served and they should not be restricted solely to the limitations of the police chargesheet.
Judgement Analysis
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment held that the Trial Court cannot take up the cognizance of offences outside of the chargesheet purely on the grounds of private affidavits.
Cognizance like these bypass the statutory process and opens up the possibilities and risks of being misused. If further on more offences surface then they will have to be investigated and put before the court through a supplementary chargesheet as given under Section 173(8) CrPC, and that any of private affidavits cannot be seen as a substitute for proper investigation.
Conclusion
This ruling reinforces a judicial discipline which should always be in practice, by restricting the courts from expanding the charges beyond the scope of the chargesheet without conducting the due investigation. This ensures fairness, prevents possibilities of misuse of the private affidavits while also strengthening the procedural norms given under the criminal law.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
