Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court

“Primary And Supplementary Reports Must Be Read Conjointly – Ignoring Closure Report Is Procedural Illegality”, In a significant ruling clarifying the duty of criminal courts in dealing with supplementary investigation reports, the Allahabad High Court has held that a Magistrate or Special Court is legally bound to consider a subsequent Final Report filed under Section 173(8) CrPC even after cognizance has been taken on an earlier charge-sheet. The Court declared that ignoring such a report and proceeding to frame charges amounts to a procedural illegality.

Justice Anil Kumar allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj, including the order framing charges. The High Court directed the trial court to first consider the Final Report dated 31.03.2024 conjointly with the initial charge-sheet dated 15.09.2023 and then pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

The ruling assumes significance for criminal jurisprudence, particularly in cases involving further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC and the interplay with Sections 190, 228 and 362 CrPC.

An FIR was lodged in Case Crime No. 627 of 2023 at Police Station Kotwali, District Kannauj, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(d) of the SC/ST Act against the appellants.

The Investigating Officer initially submitted a charge-sheet on 15.09.2023. The trial court took cognizance on 21.12.2023. However, further investigation continued and culminated in a supplementary report dated 31.03.2024 concluding that the allegations against the accused were false — effectively a closure report.

Despite the submission of this Final Report, the trial court proceeded without passing any order on it and ultimately framed charges on 07.08.2025.

Aggrieved, the appellants approached the High Court under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act, contending that it was incumbent upon the trial court to consider the Final Report before framing charges.

The core legal question framed by the High Court was: “What is the legal procedure and the nature of the judicial order to be passed by a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure when, following the cognizance of an initial charge sheet, a subsequent ‘Final Report’ (negative report) is submitted after further investigation conducted under Section 173(8)?”

The issue required examination of the scope of a Magistrate’s continuing judicial obligation and the effect of Section 362 CrPC which bars review of final orders.

Supplementary Report Is Part Of Primary Report – Court Must Consider Both Together

The High Court relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762, reiterating:

“Such supplementary report shall be dealt with as part of the primary report.”

The Court emphasized that:

“Both these reports have to be read conjointly and it is the cumulative effect of the reports and the documents annexed thereto to which the Court would be expected to apply its mind…”

Justice Anil Kumar observed that a supplementary report under Section 173(8) CrPC is not distinct in character from the initial police report. It forms an integral continuation of the investigation. Therefore, a Magistrate cannot selectively rely upon one and ignore the other.

The Court classified supplementary reports into categories, including those concluding no offence was made out — commonly known as “Final Reports” — and held that such reports demand judicial consideration.

Section 362 CrPC Not A Bar – Passing Fresh Order On Final Report Is Not Review

One of the central dilemmas addressed by the Court was whether considering a Final Report after cognizance would amount to review, which is barred under Section 362 CrPC.

Section 362 prohibits a court from altering or reviewing its judgment or final order after it has been signed.

The High Court clarified that taking cognizance is not a final disposal of the case. Therefore, passing a fresh order upon receipt of a supplementary report does not amount to review.

The Court observed:

“Section 362 Cr.P.C. prohibits review but does not restrain Magistrate from passing fresh orders on emergent facts under Section 173(8).”

It further held that if a Magistrate, after considering the supplementary report, reaches a conclusion contrary to the earlier order of cognizance, it would not amount to review but would constitute “a fresh order upon fresh facts.”

Thus, the principle of functus officio does not apply at the stage of ongoing investigation.

Continuing Judicial Obligation – Magistrate Must Apply Mind Afresh

The High Court stressed the concept of continuing judicial obligation. It observed:

“The Magistrate is duty-bound to exercise judicial mind and consider all police reports submitted during the investigation of a single case.”

Citing Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) and Dharmatma Singh v. Harminder Singh, the Court reiterated that it is ultimately for the Magistrate to decide the course of action upon receipt of multiple reports.

The Magistrate has three options:

He may accept the Final Report and drop proceedings.

He may reject it and proceed with trial.

He may direct further investigation.

However, what is impermissible is ignoring the report altogether.

The Court categorically held: “If the Magistrate proceeds further in the case without considering the Final Report at all, such inaction amounts to a procedural illegality.”

Framing Of Charges Without Considering Final Report Held Illegal

The High Court found that the trial court framed charges under Section 228 CrPC without considering the Final Report dated 31.03.2024.

Since the cumulative effect of the primary charge-sheet and the supplementary closure report was not evaluated, the order framing charges was vitiated.

Consequently, the High Court set aside:

The orders dated 10.05.2024, 27.06.2024 and 21.08.2024 issuing process,

And the consequential order dated 07.08.2025 framing charges.

The trial court has now been directed to first consider both reports conjointly and only if a prima facie case emerges thereafter, proceed to frame charges.

The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that the power of further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC carries with it a corresponding judicial obligation. A supplementary report — even if filed after cognizance — cannot be mechanically ignored.

The judgment firmly establishes that:

“Primary report and supplementary report must be read conjointly before forming opinion on prima facie case.”

By holding that failure to consider a subsequent Final Report amounts to procedural illegality, the Court has strengthened safeguards of fairness in criminal procedure and clarified that Section 362 CrPC does not bar fresh judicial application of mind on emergent investigative material.

The ruling ensures that the Magistrate’s duty does not end with taking cognizance but continues until a legally sustainable decision is reached on all investigative materials placed before the Court.

Date of Decision: 13 February 2026