Executive Magistrate's Inquest Report Only Aids Probe, Cannot Substitute Police's Final Report: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that an Inquest Report prepared under Section 174 CrPC (corresponding to Section 194 BNSS) is merely a fact-finding report meant to aid the investigation and does not conclude the investigative process or substitute a final report.

Consequently, Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the police to complete the probe and file final report before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Sakleshpura.

Referring to the landmark Madras High Court ruling in Manohari vs District Superintendent of Police & others (2018), the Court said,

“Inquest Report prepared under Section 174 of the CrPC is not a final report. It merely forms part of the materials collected during the course of investigation. Whether the First Information Report is registered before or after the preparation of the Inquest Report would not affect its validity. The Inquest Report is only a fact-finding report intended to ascertain the apparent cause of death and does not conclude the investigation.The judgment further makes it clear that the report submitted by the Executive Magistrate pursuant to the inquest is only intended to aid the investigation conducted by the police.”

The Court observed that the power of the Investigating Officer to conduct an independent probe remains unaffected by the inquest proceedings. Upon completion of the investigation, the officer is mandated to submit a final report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC before the Magistrate.

“The Executive Magistrate's Inquest Report cannot be treated as a substitute for, or equated with, the final report contemplated under Section 173(2) of the CrPC,” the Court stated.

Explaining the nature and scope of Section 174, the Court said a police officer is required to forward the body to the nearest medical officer for examination and prepare an inquest report describing wounds, fractures and other injuries found on the body and the apparent cause of death.

Rejecting the State's argument that proceedings end once the inquest report is submitted to the Executive Magistrate, the Court held, “As authoritatively held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Manohari, the Inquest Report submitted by the Executive Magistrate is only one of the materials collected during the course of investigation. It neither concludes the investigation nor constitutes the final report contemplated under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”

The Court observed that the ruling would be equally applicable to Section 194 of the BNSS.

The case arose from an incident on December 9, 2023, when a person named Santhosh passed away. A complaint was lodged alleging that his death occurred due to a failure to administer proper and necessary medical treatment. Consequently, an Unnatural Death Report (UDR) was registered under Section 174 of the CrPC, and an inquest was conducted by the Executive Magistrate on December 10, 2023.

However, no final report was later filed by the police before the Magistrate. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking directions to the police to file the final report in the case to enable the petitioner to file a protest petition.

Allowing the writ petition, the High Court directed the police to complete the investigation and file the final report before the Magistrate.

Additionally, it directed the Director General of Police to forward the Madras High Court ruling in Manohari case to all Investigating Officers and file a compliance report within four weeks.