Police Superintendent Not Liable For IO's Negligence In Not Filing Chargesheet/ Closure Report In Time: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman held that though the Superintendent of Police had the responsibility to monitor the investigation, he could not be made responsible for the negligence. The court thus set aside an order of the single judge calling for disciplinary action against 5 SPs for not verifying the filing of the final report in a case since 2015.

“No doubt, the Superintendent of Police have to monitor the investigation conducted by the lower level officers, we are of the view that merely because some of the officers have violated the procedure and not filed final report or closure report in time before the Court, that negligence cannot be attributed to the Superintendent of Police,” the court held.

Background

The respondent in the appeal had originally filed the writ petition seeking directions to the police to file a final report in a jewel missing case, within a time fixed by the court.

While taking up the matter, the single judge noted that though the FIR was registered in 2015, no final report had been filed till date. Upon enquiry, the judge was informed that the investigation in the case was closed in 2017. The single judge noted that the closure report was neither intimated to the petitioner nor the final report was filed before the concerned jurisdictional magistrate.

Taking a serious view of the procedural lapses, the single judge had called for action against 14 SHOs who served in the station from the date of registration of the FIR. The court had also sought details of the Superintendent of Police, who served at the relevant point of time. Noting that the SPs, despite having supervisory powers, failed to follow up the case properly, the single judge directed the Director General of Police to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the SPs. This part of the order was challenged in the present letter patent appeal.

The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that though SPs have supervisory powers, it was the duty of the Investigating Officers to file the reports in time and the SPs would not be at fault merely because such reports were not filed on time.

The court agreed with the submissions of the Additional Public Prosecutor and held that the single judge's order directing disciplinary action against the SPs was not proper.

The court thus set aside the single judge's direction calling for action against the SPs. The court made it clear that all other directions issued by the single judge should be scrupulously followed by the DGP.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr.A.Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.N.Palani Kumar

Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Vijarani

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 431

Case No: LPA.No.45 of 2025 & CMP.No.21496 of 2025