Supreme Court says magistrate can reject police closure report.

The Supreme Court has clarified that a magistrate is not bound by a police closure report recommending that a case be closed for lack of sufficient evidence. Even if the police find no grounds to proceed against an accused, the magistrate can independently examine the material collected during the investigation and either accept the closure report, take cognizance of the offence, or direct further investigation.

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran also held that statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [corresponding to Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)], though not admissible as evidence at trial, can be considered at the stage of taking cognizance as they form part of the material placed before the court by the police.

Court made the observations while allowing an appeal filed by Mrityunjay Kumar Chaudhary, whose son had drowned to death. The appeal challenged the Patna High Court's decision quashing the cognizance taken under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code [corresponding to Section 103 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)] against Kumar Gitanshu alias Madhav, the second respondent-accused.

The high court had set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, as well as the magistrate's order dealing with the police final report and the protest petition.

The accused's counsel argued that the magistrate had subsequently taken cognizance and, therefore, the appeal had become infructuous. The appellant's counsel, however, submitted that the high court's operative order had also set aside the order directing the protest petition to be registered as a complaint case. Hence, there was no subsisting cognizance or pending protest complaint.

Court noted that the appellant was the first informant and had stated that his son was taken from their house by the second respondent for a walk. Shortly afterwards, one Ashok Chaudhary informed the family that the boy had been found drowning near the State Boring.

The father rushed to the spot and arranged for boatmen to search for his son, but the search failed as the boy had been swept away by the currents. An FIR was subsequently lodged.

The police filed a final report, which was initially accepted by the magistrate. The magistrate also directed that the protest petition be registered as a complaint case.

On a revision petition, the additional sessions judge directed the magistrate to reconsider the final report, pointing to compelling circumstances that could justify taking cognizance.

The magistrate, on reconsidering the material, took cognizance. The Patna High Court subsequently quashed that order.

The Supreme Court said the high court had interfered "in a very casual manner" by ignoring the compelling circumstances identified by the revisional court.

The high court had relied on the postmortem report, which stated that the death was caused by asphyxia and ventricular fibrillation resulting from drowning.

The Supreme Court said this reasoning was flawed. It observed that even if a person was deliberately pushed into water with the intention of drowning him, the postmortem report may not by itself reveal anything sinister. The circumstances surrounding the death therefore had to be examined.

Court noted that the deceased was allegedly taken by the second respondent shortly before he was found drowning. Two witnesses had also stated that they saw the second respondent fleeing from the scene.

The Bench said these circumstances warranted a trial to unravel the circumstances surrounding the death. It also observed that the person who was allegedly last seen with the deceased would have to explain the circumstances, particularly when he was allegedly seen fleeing the spot.

Court further rejected the high court's finding that the FIR did not disclose how the father received information about the drowning. It said a reading of the FIR clearly showed that Ashok Chaudhary had informed the family members, following which the father rushed to the spot and arranged the search.

Court also faulted the high court for failing to properly consider the detailed order of the additional sessions judge, which had identified circumstances warranting reconsideration of the police closure report.

The Bench said the additional sessions judge had considered the Section 161 CrPC statements and formed a prima facie view that there was sufficient material to proceed to trial. The high court, however, had "casually brushed aside" the revisional court's findings.

Court clarified that the observations made by the magistrate, additional sessions judge or Supreme Court while considering cognizance would not govern the eventual trial.

"We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the cognizance taken on the facts and circumstances as coming forth," the Bench said.

The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the Patna High Court's order and remanded the matter for expeditious trial.

It directed the second respondent to appear before the magistrate within two weeks. If he failed to appear, he would be taken into custody and produced before the magistrate. On appearance or production, he would be released on bail on conditions imposed by the court, subject to his cooperation in the trial.

Case Title: Mrityunjay Kumar Chaudhary Vs State of Bihar & Anr

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran 

Date of Judgment: October 09, 2026

Tags: