13 October 2026 Legal Update

Magistrate Can Take Cognizance Despite Police Closure Report; Cognizance Restored in Drowning Death Case (Sections 302, 201 IPC) : Supreme Court

Case details

• Case: Mrityunjay Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar and Another (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18490 of 2026)
• Citation: not shown on the signed order (no INSC number or reportable marking)
• Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
• Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran (the order is signed by both and does not name an author)

Parties and proceedings (simplified)

• Appellant: Mrityunjay Kumar Chaudhary, the first informant and father of the deceased boy.
• Respondent 1: State of Bihar. Respondent 2: the accused, who allegedly took the boy from the appellant's house (not named in the order).
• Offences: Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• Orders below: order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, IV, Darbhanga dated 29.10.2021; revisional order of the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga; and the Patna High Court order dated 05.05.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 36193/2022, which is the order under challenge.

Facts of the case

• The appellant's First Information Statement said that Respondent 2 took his son from the house for a walk. Later, one Ashok Chaudhary informed the family that the boy was found drowning near the “State Boring” and that, despite his efforts, he could not save him.
• The father rushed to the site and arranged boatmen to search the river. The search failed because the boy had been swept away by the currents. This statement led to the FIR (Annexure P1).
• After investigation the police filed a final report (a “closure report”). By order dated 29.10.2021 the Magistrate accepted the final report, directed the appellant's protest petition to be registered as a complaint case, and posted it for 01.12.2021 for examination of the complainant.
• The appellant took the matter in revision. The 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, by a detailed order (Annexure P6), directed the Magistrate to reconsider the final report, pointing to compelling circumstances that could support cognizance.
• On re-examination of the materials, the Magistrate took cognizance. The High Court quashed it. The operative portion of the High Court's order set aside the revisional order and also the Magistrate's order accepting the final report and directing the protest petition to be registered as a complaint.

Legal provisions and precedents

• Sections 302 and 201 IPC: murder and causing disappearance of evidence.
• Section 190(1)(b) CrPC: the Magistrate may take cognizance on a police report, which includes a closure report.
• Section 169 CrPC: even where police find no sufficient evidence, the accused is released on a bond to appear before the Magistrate if required.
• Section 161 CrPC: statements to police during investigation, which the Court can look at at the stage of cognizance but cannot rely on as evidence at trial.
• Closure-report law: Brajesh Kumar alias Birjesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2026 SCC Online 1311, authored by K. Vinod Chandran, J.), para 16, which in turn relies on Ram Naresh Prasad v. State of Jharkhand ((2009) 11 SCC 299), H.S. Bains v. State (U.T. of Chandigarh) ((1980) 4 SCC 631), Ramswaroop Soni v. State of M.P. ((2020) 18 SCC 327) and Abhinandan Jha (1967 SCC Online SC 107).

Issue before the Supreme Court

Was the High Court justified in quashing the Magistrate's cognizance of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC taken after the police filed a closure report, and can a Court take cognizance despite such a report?

Contentions

• Respondent 2 (accused): at the outset, his counsel submitted that cognizance had already been taken by the Magistrate, so the appeal had become infructuous.
• Appellant: counsel pointed out that the High Court's operative portion set aside both the revisional order and the Magistrate's order accepting the final report and directing registration of the protest petition. As matters stood, no cognizance had been taken and no protest complaint was pending, so the appeal was not infructuous.
• The order records that counsel for the State were also heard but does not set out their detailed arguments.

Reasoning of the Supreme Court

• The preliminary objection. The Court did not accept the argument that the appeal was infructuous and proceeded to examine the High Court's order on merits, noting, as the appellant pointed out, that the High Court's operative portion had set aside the Magistrate's order too.
• Law on closure reports. Quoting para 16 of Brajesh Kumar, the Court restated that on a closure report the Court has three options: accept it and close the proceedings, take cognizance on the material in the report (under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC), or direct further investigation. The Court cannot direct the police to file a charge sheet, but the primacy of the Court to take cognizance or deny it follows from the CrPC itself.
• Postmortem finding. The High Court reasoned that the postmortem showed nothing sinister because death was due to asphyxia and ventricular fibrillation from drowning. The Supreme Court held this assumption wrong, since even a person pushed into water deliberately would show nothing sinister in a postmortem, and the report has to be tested against the attendant circumstances.
• Attendant circumstances. The accused took the deceased from his house, a little later the boy was found drowning, and two witnesses spoke of seeing the accused fleeing the scene. This made the matter sinister and a trial expedient. The accused, with whom the deceased was last seen and who was found running away, should offer an explanation.
• FIR reasoning. The High Court said the FIR did not disclose that the father received information of the drowning. The Supreme Court found this wrong: the FIR clearly says that information reached the father through Ashok Chaudhary, after which he rushed to the spot and arranged boatmen. The High Court had not read the documents properly.
• Revisional order ignored. The High Court did not look at the detailed order of the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, which listed compelling circumstances, dealt with the Section 161 CrPC statements, took a prima facie view that there was material for a trial, and noticed decisions on cognizance despite a closure report. The High Court brushed all this aside casually. The Supreme Court deliberately did not spell out those circumstances so as not to influence the trial.
• Conclusion. The Court found no reason to interfere with the cognizance. It clarified that the views of the Additional Sessions Judge, the Magistrate and the Supreme Court do not govern the trial. Section 161 statements cannot be relied on at trial but can be considered at the stage of cognizance, since they form the material produced with the final report.

Held

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order. It remanded the matter for expediting the trial. Respondent 2 must appear before the Magistrate within two weeks, and the Magistrate shall carry out the committal proceedings in accordance with law. If he does not appear in that time, he shall be taken into custody and produced before the Magistrate. On appearance or production he shall be released on bail on conditions the Court thinks fit, subject to cooperation in the trial.

Key legal principles established

• On a police closure report the Magistrate may accept it, take cognizance on the material in the report, or direct further investigation. A Court is entitled to take cognizance despite a closure report, and this needs no reiteration.
• A postmortem showing death by drowning does not by itself rule out foul play. It must be tested against the attendant circumstances, such as the accused taking the deceased away, being last seen with him, and being seen fleeing.
• Statements under Section 161 CrPC can be looked at when deciding cognizance, since that is the material before the Court, but cannot be relied on as evidence at trial.
• A High Court should not quash cognizance by ignoring a detailed revisional order that records compelling circumstances, or by misreading the FIR.
• Observations made when affirming cognizance do not regulate or govern the trial.