Magistrate Can Name Persons Responsible For Custodial Death, Direct FIR Under Section 176(1A) CrPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a Judicial Magistrate conducting an inquiry under Section 176(1A) CrPC into a custodial death is not confined to merely determining the cause of death, but is also empowered to identify the persons prima facie responsible for the custodial death and direct registration of an FIR against them. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 319]

Justice Jai Kumar Pillai made the observations while dismissing writ petitions filed by the Superintendent of the District Jail, Dhar, and a team of doctors challenging a judicial inquiry report and the consequential FIR registered in connection with the alleged custodial death of a jail inmate.

The bench observed: 

"this Court firmly holds that the power exercisable by a Magistrate under Section 176(1-A) of the Cr.P.C. is not strictly confined merely to ascertaining the physiological or medical cause of death. The legislative mandate allows the Magistrate to conduct a comprehensive and holistic enquiry. The Magistrate is fully empowered to examine the complete sequence of events, document the specific circumstances under which the custodial incident took place, and explicitly name the accused persons whose actions or omissions culminated in the fatality. Therefore, the petitioners' contention that the Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction by naming the perpetrators and detailing the circumstances is legally unsustainable". 

The petitions arose from the death of jail inmate Bheru, who allegedly died after being assaulted by a search team inside the District Jail, Dhar, following the recovery of a packet of tobacco allegedly supplied by him to another inmate. A judicial inquiry under Section 176(1A) CrPC was ordered into the custodial death, while a medical board conducted the post-mortem examination.

The medical board opined the manner of death to be "open and unknown", stating that a final opinion could be given only after the receipt and examination of the viscera report. 

The Magistrate thereafter visited the jail premises and recorded statements of convicts and undertrial prisoners— who testified that the Jailor and other jail staff had assaulted the deceased and the injured "A" with sticks and belts. 

The Magistrate thus concluded the judicial enquiry and implicated the Jail Superintendent, subordinate jail staff, and the empanelled doctors for their roles in custodial death, deliberate negligence and subsequent destruction of vital evidence. 

The senior counsel for one of the petitioners claimed that he was neither part of the search team nor physically present at the spot but was only holding the official position of Superintendent of District Jail. 

The senior counsel argued that the Magistrate grossly exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 176(1A) CrPC. The petitioners argued that the Magistrate only has jurisdiction to ascertain the cause and nature of death and does not empower a Magistrate to conduct a parallel trial to implicate individuals. 

The senior counsel for the petitioners argued that their official service record was clean, spanning 32 years. 

The counsel appearing on behalf of the empanelled doctors (the other petitioners) claimed that the medical professionals were discharging their statutory duty in a bona fide manner. It was claimed that since the precise physiological cause of death could not be scientifically ascertained without chemical analysis, the medical board lawfully and correctly reserved their final opinion pending the receipt of the viscera report. 

The counsel for the State and the deceased's father argued that the deceased suffered brutal, merciless and fatal assault at the hands of jail personnel within the secure confines of District Jail. The respondents argued that the Jail Superintendent was not only physically present at the crime scene but deliberately ignored the agonising cries of the deceased. 

The respondents argued that the autopsy report was deliberately vague. It was further claimed that the injury marks found on the deceased's body were identical to the marks on inmate A, who survived the assault. The doctors intentionally omitted crucial details to save the culprits. 

The court noted that the primary issue for consideration was "precise scope of power vested in a Magistrate under Section 176 of the Cr.P.C., and whether the JMFC, Dhar, has exceeded this statutory jurisdiction while conducting the enquiry and rendering definitive findings recommending the prosecution of the present petitioners". 

Section 176 CrPC governs a magisterial inquiry into the cause of death or disappearance of a person or allegations of rape while in police or judicial custody. 

The court noted that the provision is applicable in the present case where an inmate died while being detained in authorised custody of the district jail of Dhar. 

Referring to the case of Ram Sharan Prajapati v State of Madhya Pradesh [WP-8615-2013], the court reiterated that the magistrate is empowered to conduct a comprehensive and holistic enquiry into the death. 

Thus, the court rejected the petitioners' contention that the Magistrate had exceeded his jurisdiction by identifying the perpetrators and directing registration of a crime. The bench emphasized, 

"A careful perusal of the impugned enquiry report demonstrates that the learned JMFC rigorously, objectively, and meticulously analyzed the ocular and documentary evidence before arriving at his conclusions". 

The bench further concurred with the report, noting that the Magistrate rightly applied Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, laying the burden entirely on jail administration to explain the injuries and specifically naming the accused men. 

The bench further noted that the Magistrate remained "entirely cognizant" of his jurisdictional limits, observing that 

"While directing the registration of the FIR, the Magistrate explicitly noted in the report that regarding the initiation of administrative or departmental misconduct proceedings against the doctors, he did not possess the mandate to file a direct complaint. He correctly deferred that specific administrative decision to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, acting as the Special Judge of the District Human Rights Court". 

Thus, the bench dismissed the petitions and upheld the judicial enquiry report and consequential registration of FIR. 

Case Title: Raja Ram Dangi v State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 15267/2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 319

For Petitioners: Senior Advocate Ajay Bagadia with Advocates Gajendra Singh Chouhan and LS Chandiramani

For State: Government Advocate Ambuj Patel

For Deceased's father: Advocates Akash Rathi and Vivek Yadav

Click here to read/download the Order