Deepak Yadav and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025
The Supreme Court reaffirmed due process principles by stressing that cognizance must be grounded in investigative record, not affidavits.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
29 September 2025
Judges
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Sanjay Karol Sharma
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
An FIR was initially registered against the accused under several IPC sections, including Section 394, and the SC/ST Act.
-
After police investigation, Section 394 IPC was excluded from the chargesheet.
-
The complainant repeatedly sought restoration of Section 394 through applications.
-
The Trial Court took cognizance of Section 394 based solely on affidavits from private witnesses, without examining the case diary or calling for further investigation.
-
The Allahabad High Court upheld this order, which led to the present appeal in the Supreme Court.
Issues
-
Whether a Trial Court can take cognizance of an offence (like Section 394 IPC) solely on the basis of affidavits submitted by private witnesses?
-
Whether it is mandatory for the Court to independently examine the police record or direct further investigation before taking such cognizance?
-
What is the role of the prosecution and police in providing complete witness statements under Section 161 CrPC to the Court?
Held
-
The Cognizance solely based on private affidavits is impermissible.
-
The Trial Court must base its satisfaction on investigation materials or direct further inquiry.
-
The prosecution has a duty to place complete Section 161 statements before the Court.
-
Due process and fair trial require reliance on authentic investigative records, not just party-submitted affidavits.
Analysis
-
The Supreme Court reaffirmed due process principles by stressing that cognizance must be grounded in investigative record, not affidavits.
-
It criticized mechanical addition of charges without judicial application of mind.
-
The judgment places accountability on the police and prosecution to present complete and truthful records.
-
It also reinforces the Trial Court’s active role in scrutinizing whether the legal ingredients of offences are made out.
-
The warning to the Superintendent of Police marks a strong signal against suppression of evidence, pushing for institutional transparency.
-
This judgment strengthens safeguards against misuse of criminal procedure and ensures greater procedural fairness, particularly where serious offences like robbery are involved.