<\/p>\n
Recently, the Supreme Court clarified that a Magistrate cannot direct the police to file a charge-sheet after the investigating agency submits a closure report, observing that the assessment of whether sufficient material exists to prosecute an accused rests exclusively with the Investigating Officer. The case arose from a dowry death prosecution that had remained pending for over two decades. The Court further observed that although a Magistrate is not bound by the police’s opinion, the appropriate course is to either accept the closure report, take cognizance on the material available, or direct further investigation, but not compel the filing of a charge-sheet.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Brief facts:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The case stemmed from a dowry death prosecution under Sections 498A, 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. During the investigation, the first Investigating Officer found material against all the accused but filed a charge-sheet against only two persons following directions from the Superintendent of Police, while investigation against the others continued. A subsequent Investigating Officer later filed a closure report in respect of the remaining accused. Despite the closure report, the Magistrate took cognizance, leading to separate trials arising from the same FIR. While most of the accused were acquitted, the Appellant was convicted, and the High Court later remanded the matter, prompting him to approach the Apex Court challenging the remand order as well as his conviction.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Contentions of the Appellant:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Appellant argued that the Superintendent of Police had no authority to direct the Investigating Officer to restrict the charge-sheet after finding material against all the accused. The counsel further contended that once a closure report was filed, the Magistrate could not compel the police to file a charge-sheet contrary to its opinion. The Appellant also challenged the legality of parallel trials arising from the same FIR and submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove the dowry death beyond reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Contentions of the Respondent:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Respondent supported the continuation of the prosecution and defended the Magistrate’s cognizance, contending that procedural irregularities during investigation did not invalidate the criminal proceedings. The counsel argued that the materials available on record justified continuation of the prosecution and that the appellant’s conviction ought not to be interfered with.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Observation of the Court:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Court observed, \u201cthe formation of opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial is exclusively with the officer in charge of the investigation. If a closure report is filed; finding no case made out, it is not open to the Magistrate to direct the police to file a charge sheet.\u201d The Bench, however, clarified that \u201cthe Magistrate is competent to proceed to take cognizance of the offence, on the materials revealed in the investigation, under Section 190 which imports a judicial discretion on the Magistrate to receive such report under Section 173. The Magistrate, hence, is not bound to accept the opinion of the police that there is no case to place the accused on trial as it is always open to take a contrary view on the facts disclosed in the report.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Bench held, \u201cwhen the police file a report, colloquially termed a \u2018closure report\u2019; finding no sustainable case made out, the Court cannot direct a charge sheet to be filed, but could always take cognizance on the basis of the material in the report or direct further investigation.\u201d The Court further reiterated that \u201cwhen a closure report is filed finding no offence made out, the Court has three options; (i) to accept the same and close the proceedings or (ii) take cognizance of the matter on the materials in the report or (iii) direct further investigation.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Further, the Court noted that the Superintendent of Police had absolutely no authority to direct the Investigating Officer to file a charge-sheet only against two accused when the Investigating Officer had formed an opinion that offences were made out against all the accused. The formation of opinion under Section 173(2) CrPC lies exclusively with the Investigating Officer. The Bench observed, \u201cthe opinion in the final report filed is not decisive of the cognizance and the committal order\/s is\/are not determinative of whether the trial is single\/separate\/joint; which is at the exclusive discretion of the Court.\u201d It added that \u201cthere could be claimed an irregularity but there is no illegality, miscarriage of justice or prejudice caused to the accused since split trials, in the same offence is not unheard of.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Finally, the Bench observed, \u201cthe prosecution has failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt and the attendant circumstances coupled with the defence evidence brings forth a probable hypothesis of innocence.\u201d The Court held, \u201cthe trial courts would do well to bestow equal attention to the defence evidence as that bestowed on the prosecution evidence. There is no cause to approach the defence evidence with distrust, suspicion or even scepticism.\u201d The Bench concluded by reiterating that \u201cthe accused is not obliged to prove his\/her innocence and if a reasonable doubt is raised either from the unsatisfactory evidence led by the prosecution or from the evidence led by the defence its benefit should inure to the accused.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The decision of the Court:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Allowing the appeal, the Apex Court set aside the High Court’s remand and the Appellant’s conviction, acquitting him of all charges. It clarified that a Magistrate cannot direct the police to file a charge-sheet after a closure report, and may only accept the report, take cognizance on the material collected, or direct further investigation. Finding no legally admissible and reliable evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Court acquitted the Appellant.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Case Title: Brajesh Kumar @ Birjesh Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.474 of 2026<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar, Hon’ble Justice K. Vinod Chandran<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Advocate for the Petitioner: AOR Neeraj Shekhar, Adv. Kshama Sharma, Adv. Rajesh Maurya, Adv. Ritwik Prasad, Adv. Ujjwal Ashutosh, Adv. Avi Sahai, Adv. Rajat Singh Chandel<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Advocate for the Respondent: AOR Manish Kumar, Adv. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Kumar Saurav<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Recently, the Supreme Court clarified that a Magistrate cannot direct the police to file a charge-sheet after<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":69251,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-69250","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-highcourt"],"yoast_head":"\n